The Doctoral Candidate – a parable by Jim

The Christian claim is that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship. However, it cannot be a proof in any sense, because there is no proof of the resurrection itself, as an event. To help illustrate how hollow the claim that the resurrection proves that Jesus was the Messiah, whatever that means to the believer, please allow me to present the following analogy.

Let us imagine a man, a doctoral candidate, who must take an exam to earn his degree and title. He receives his exam, and he sits writing for some time. Once time is up, he confidently gives the exam to the qualifying board to review. But, they stare at the paper, mouths agape. They say to the candidate, “You have not answered even one question! You are clearly not qualifed to become a certified doctor.”

“No! No!” the man exclaims. “You have it all wrong! I wrote my answers in invisible ink. Rest assured, I do know everything there is to know about the field.”

Do you think that the certifying board will just take his word for it?

Yet this is what the Christian demands. He claims to have proof that Jesus is the Messiah, but his ‘proof’ is nothing of the kind. It is a mere assertion. It is an event to which virtually no one had any direct knowledge. It is like invisible ink. At first the Christian claims to have proof, but then he says that one must just take his word for it; he must just have faith. He holds simultaneously the contradictory views that Jesus proved that he was the Messiah and that no proof need be given. He claims that Jesus has passed the test of the prophet, while invalidating the test.

Now the missionary will bring other proofs for the messiahship of Jesus, as well. He will point to various prophecies within Tanach, prophecies of the Messiah, prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Strangely, many of the fulfillments of these prophecies also were unverified. They also must be believed without any evidence. As such, they also cannot serve as proofs. The evidence meant to induce faith cannot itself rely upon faith.

One of these prophecies, the fulfillment of which was never verified, is the supposed virgin birth. One cannot know that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus; it has to be taken on faith. This means that, not only is it not a sign, it is not a proof. Similarly, Jesus’ birthplace and lineage was unknown to people, even in his lifetime (see John 7:40-42). Yet the missionary will proclaim that Jesus fulfilled prophecies relating to the Messiah and that this is proof that he is the Messiah. He claims that these prophecies were fulfilled in secret, where no one could see or investigate, and at the same time declares them to be irrefutable evidences of Jesus’ credentials as Messiah.

These are more answers written in invisible ink. Let us return to that exam. One of the certifying board says that, though this is highly inconvenient, he knows a way to read invisible ink. He has a special lamp that will warm the paper and will make the answers written thereon to present themselves. While he is gone to fetch the lamp, a fellow member of the board notices a further irregularity on the test. He does not remember all of these questions being part of the exam. Indeed, the questions betray a shocking lack of knowledge on the part of the one that wrote the question. He wonders aloud which of the board members might have added these questions, but they are all as puzzled as he is. Perhaps it was the fellow who went for the lamp.

After some time, their fellow returns with the lamp. He sets it up and begins waving the paper slowly back and forth under its specially calibrated heat. To the surprise of the entire certifying board, some of the questions begin to disappear. They notice that these are those with which they had no familiarity. They expected to see more, not less. The strange light of the lamp was erasing questions, while the answers remained invisible.
Shocked, they accused the doctoral candidate of fraud. It was obvious, they said, that he added questions to the test. He agreed that he did add the questions, but he denied any fraud. Instead, he claimed that the board did not know the proper questions to ask, and that he, in fact, knew better than they what the questions were.

This is what has happened with many of the so-called prophecies that are meant to prove Jesus is the Messiah. Not only are the fulfillments unverified and unverifiable, the prophecies are not legitimately prophecies regarding the Messiah. For the sake of brevity, I will not rehash all of these; they have been discussed at length. But it is clear, for example, that Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy regarding the Messiah. Hosea 11:1, which Matthew makes out to be a prophecy about the Messiah being called out Egypt, is about Israel. Moreover, it is not predictive, but refers to the past. Likewise, John 13:18 makes the betrayal of Jesus out to be a fulfillment of Ps. 41:9, which is also not about the Messiah. Missionaries make long lists of prophecies of which Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled. However, the great majority of them are not Messianic prophecies.
And if a prophecy when read is not clearly referring to the Messiah, and if it was not verifiably fulfilled by Jesus, then it is not a proof of his Messiahship at all; nor can it be.
It is at this point that the missionary will be like our doctoral candidate. He will argue that he has a special insight into the material and is best suited to declare what is a Messianic prophecy and what is not. He will argue that those judging his claims just do not understand the prophecies the way that he does, but that they are indeed proofs of the highest magnitude. The missionary becomes the apologist, no longer trying to give evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus, but evidence that his reading of scripture is the superior one.

But wait! One of the certifying board notices that one of the questions has been scribbled out. This question is partially faded. It is one of those added to the exam by the candidate. The whole experience has been rather irregular, and this attempted erasure is only more bizarre. The member of the board inquires why this question was first added and then subtracted from the exam questions. In response, the candidate begins sweating and stammering. He says that they should not even review this question, because he had obviously not intended them to see it. It would not be fair for them to review the question.

This has been the response of some missionaries to the refutation of Zechariah 13:6. Missionaries, such as Sid Roth, once used this passage as proof that Zechariah prophecied about Jesus. The verse, quoted alone, sounded rather Christological to the missionary, particularly: “What are these wounds in your hands?” After it was pointed out to them that this was written about false prophets, they stopped employing the passage, of course. They tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug. They tried to erase that exam question.
But the question must be asked: On what principle did they at first accept and then reject this as a prophecy about Jesus? The answers are obvious and need little explanation. They thought it was about Jesus, because superficially it sounded like him. Wounds in hands? That sounds like the nails that pinned Jesus to the cross! Afterward, they changed their tune, because the context of the passage would make Jesus to be a false prophet. It is the context of the passage that told them that the verse they quoted was not about the Messiah and would make the missionary wish to no longer associate the passage with Jesus.

Yet the missionary ignores the context of the verse in question in those other questionable passages. Hosea 11:1 is about Israel, not the Messiah. He applies it to Jesus anyway. Psalm 41 is about a man that has sinned, but the missionary applies v. 9 to a Jesus he holds to be sinless. Isaiah 7:14 is about a child born hundreds of years before Jesus, but the missionary applies it to Jesus anyway. In these cases, and many others, the context of the ‘fulfilled prophecies’ shows them not to be Messianic altogether. Based on the same principle that turned the missionary away from Zechariah 13:6, these others cannot be proofs used to substantiate Jesus. It is apparent that the missionary is playing a game. He is perpetrating a fraud. He knows that context matters to understanding a verse, but he only applies this principle when it suits him.

The next question that one must ask is: If Jesus was the Messiah, why must a fraud be perpetrated to establish his credentials? This answer, too, is obvious. The missionary abuses scripture to establish Jesus credential because insufficient evidence exists. Invisible proofs are not proofs at all. A secondary method to establish Jesus’ credentials was desired. They would declare him to fulfill prophecy. However, Jesus did not fulfill any Messianic prophecies, things like building the third temple. New prophecies must therefore be manufactured. To do so, verses would need to be taken out of context. The Church would need to fake Jesus credentials.

The fact that the Church needed to perpetrate such a fraud tells one all he needs to know. He can rest assured that Jesus is not the Messiah. If he had been, no need to misrepresent Tanach would exist. A little scrutiny of the Christian case for Jesus shows the proofs to be all hollow, mere nothingness. Some of the supposed proofs must be accepted on faith, denying their ability to prove anything, like the resurrection. Other proofs were based on fraud, which are easily exposed with a little study. All those things meant to establish Jesus as the Messiah, when exposed to the bright light of truth, evaporate as the dew evaporates under the warm sun.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal

This entry was posted in Jim. Bookmark the permalink.

462 Responses to The Doctoral Candidate – a parable by Jim

  1. Dina says:

    This is exactly right. Bravo, Jim!

  2. LarryB says:

    “A little scrutiny of the Christian case for Jesus shows the proofs to be all hollow, mere nothingness.”
    It’s embarrassing to admit but it was during my mid to late 20’s before I was ever concerned about the christian proofs. I still remember the first time I took the time to see what the christian proofs were about and if my memory serves me well the first one was -Is 7:14- my reaction was “But that’s not what it says”. Needless to say it was all down hill from there. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

    • Alan says:

      Larry,
      “Needless to say it was all down hill from there.” – yes, for falsehood and vanity; but uphill for truth, integrity, and Hashem being very proud of you.

  3. Storm says:

    WAS YESHUA GOD?
    Proverbs 30:4 – Who has gone up to heaven and come down. Who has cupped the wind in the palms of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!

    Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him? (After all, He appeared to Moses as a Burning Bush and God was with the Jews in the form of “a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night” (Exodus 13:21, 22; Numbers 14:14; Nehemiah 9:12, 19).

    The New Covenant equates Yeshua with the Torah and the Tree of Life, stating that He was behind the creation of the heavens and earth: Colossians 1:16 – “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”. John further states that Yeshua is the Torah, present with God and therefore “part of” God: John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Torah, and the Torah was with God, and the Torah was God”. There is no question in the context of the passage that the Torah is Yeshua, the Torah is God, and Yeshua is God.

    In John 8:58, Yeshua actually declared not only His pre-existence but also took upon Himself the name of God as revealed to Moses in the burning bush: “Amen, amen I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

    And further, in Matthew 26:63-64, the High Priest directly confronted Yeshua, saying to Him, “I charge You under oath by the living God, tell us if You are Messiah Ben-Elohim!” (the Messiah Son of God). Yeshua responded: “as you have said,” thus affirming under oath that He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

    When Christ was crucified, the inner veil of the temple was torn asunder… this refers to the masach (screen) and the ohr pnimi (inner light). The Messiah is a light that corrects the 32 parts of the Heart upon Gmar Tikkun (the end of correction) He is a pulling force from above. Messiah is a flesh and blood man who assumed human nature in order to unite man with divinity, so that we can have a sensation of the Creator through the love of him as being Incarnated upon the Earth and having sacrificed himself, so that our sense of shame and sin is corrected in our hearts. How can we have equivalence of Form with a Creator we cannot approach in the flesh?

    The Bible tells us that Yeshua’s work is not finished. According to Matthew 23:39, Yeshua must return, and this won’t happen until the Jews recognize Him as King, Messiah of Israel, saying, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” When Yeshua returns the second time as mashiach ben David as He said He would (Luke 12:40) He will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing them back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).

    So did Yeshua claim to be the Messiah? Yes, and more! He claimed to be the Messiah, the Lord, the Anointed One, and the unique Divine Son of the Living God, pre-existent, and one with the Father who will come again to judge the living and the dead!

    • RT says:

      Storm, before we arrive at any conclusion on who Yeshua was, we first you have to determine if G-d can become a man. G-d can do anything, but you probably agree that it is not in His nature for Him to lie. The same holds true for the incarnation of G-d, if G-d told us that He won’t become a man, then we can conclude without doubts that Yeshua was not G-d. Do you agree with that logic?

      • Alan says:

        RT,
        God is already “in” everything and everywhere; His very existence is the existence of everything. So everything is already an expression of Him – some things to a greater degree and others to a lesser degree. But because we and our minds are finite, it is impossible for us to perceive the Infinite. So from God’s point of view, He is everywhere equally but from our point of view His true infinite self is impossible for us to perceive directly. The most we finite beings can grasp is an awareness that He exists through finite manifestations be the physical (burning bush) or spiritual (prophecy). Hashem can manifest Himself in anything because he’s already there. So He wasn’t any more or any less present in Jesus than He is in me or in a mosquito or in a rock or in the Satan. From our point of view it’s a matter of how much He will let us become aware of His existence through any particulae phenomenon. But in truth. His existence is everywhere equally – not any more or less in Jesus.

        • RT says:

          Alan, maybe I did not explain properly what I meant. Could G-d become a man, (as Jesus being fully G-d)? I am not saying that G-d was not in Jesus, but could Jesus be G-d in the flesh?

          • Alan says:

            RT,
            God is in your flesh and soul just as much as He was in Jesus’ flesh and soul. He IS your flesh and soul. He is everything everywhere. The Infinite includes the finite but anything finite (the only kind of phenomena we can relate to) is not the Infinite. We are incapable of perceiving the Infinite in any way. If someone says he is both Kavi and God, this is impossible because Kavi has his own mind and will that is able to relate to God as separate from himself. So we see that Kavi can’t be God. But if we have a person who says that he is not really Kavi but God then this person would have to prove to us that he is telling the truth. We’d have to test him. Jesus didn’t even claim that he was only God.

          • RT says:

            Thanks Alan, very thoughtful and deep… My point was if G-d said in Deuteronomy 7 that he had no form and not to worship any form, that would nullify the claim of Storm that Jesus was G-D. I thought it was a starting point to the conversation… Storm, what do you think of Deuteronomy 7, shouldn’t be enough for any follower of HaShem to think “Wait a minute, G-d said he did not show any body, and not to worship any form of Himself, so Jesus is NOT G-d.” Why shouldn’t we arrive to that conclusion when G-d warned us explicitly not to do what you are doing (worshiping Jesus as G-d)?

          • Alan says:

            RT,
            I do think that Deut. 7 is the best starting point and I would like to know how Storm deals with it.
            And since God is One, how could God have more than one mind and will? As soon as there are two or more minds or wills that are both God, then we no longer have one God. And we see Jesus talking and praying to God and even admitting that his will is subject to God’s will.

          • Dina says:

            Also, it’s not something that can be proved. The people who actually encountered Jesus did not see God. They saw a man just like themselves. Why should anyone believe anyone who points to a man that is obviously a man and nothing more and claims he is God?

          • Alan says:

            Egberta comes to us and says she is Hashem. She says her name is actually Hashem even though her social security card says her name is Egberta Morris. As RT said, the Torah is very clear that we are forbidden to worship any forms – anything up above (spiritual forms) or down below (physical forms) – except for the formless God. Let’s say a Christian thinks this Torah prohibition has been nullified but he still believes that God is one. How would Egberta who claims to actualy be Hashem prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to this Christian?

          • Dina says:

            Egberta? Love it!

          • Alan says:

            RT,
            Did you mean Deut. 4, not 7?

          • RT says:

            Yes, I meant Deut 4…

      • Storm says:

        It’s important to base your study’s on the scriptures as a whole not one verse that stands alone lest it become a stumbling block. Study the Metatron aka angel that visited Abrahams tent before destroying Sodom.

        I believe this: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God ~ John‬ ‭3:16-18‬.

        Did Yeshua Fulfill the Messianic Expectation as Prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures?
        It is important to begin by saying that for one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is not the Messiah, no amount of evidence will be convincing. But for those who are honest in asking, the evidence speaks for itself. When sincerely asked, this question is a good one. After all, there have been false Messiahs in Jewish history. Among the most prominent were Bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi. Bar Kochba led a revolt against Rome in the years 132-135 C.E.

        During this revolt, one of the most famous figures in Jewish history, Rabbi Akiva, proclaimed him to be “King Messiah.” Unfortunately, Bar Kochba, Akiva and thousands of Jews were killed in 135 C.E. when the Romans stormed the stronghold of Betar. Shabbetai Zevi, on the other hand, was a self-proclaimed Messiah. Flourishing in 17th-century Europe, the Shabbatean movement spread among both the common people and the rabbis. But when Shabbetai Zevi was arrested in 1666 by the Sultan of Turkey, he converted to Islam rather than face death. We have been tragically wrong before, so it is not surprising that hard evidence should be sought for believing in Jesus.

        The chance of one single man fulfilling only 48 Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh (Old Testament) would be 1 in 10^157*—to understand, that would be like the chance of finding, on the very first attempt, one specific electron out of all of the electrons in all the known mass of the entire universe! *1 followed by 157 zeros.

        Yeshua however, fulfilled not just 48 Messianic prophecies—He fulfilled more than 324 individual prophecies that the Prophets wrote concerning the Messiah!

        The Messiah has been prophesied in Scripture with great specificity.

        List of Messianic Prophecies:
        1. Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem
        Micah 5:2; fulfilled in Matt. 2:1-7; John 7:42; Luke 2:4-7

        2. Messiah is to be preceded by a Messenger 

        Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1; fulfilled in Matthew 3:1-3; 11:10; John 1:23; Luke 1:17

        3. Messiah is to enter Jerusalem on a donkey 

        Zechariah 9:9; fulfilled in Luke 35-37; Matthew 21:6-11

        4. Messiah is to be betrayed by a friend 

        Psalms 41:9; 55:12-14; fulfilled in Matthew 10:4; 26:49-50; John 13:21

        5. Messiah is to be sold for 30 pieces of silver 

        Zechariah 11:12; fulfilled in Matthew 26:15; 27:3

        6. The money for which Messiah is sold is to be thrown “to the potter” in God’s house

        Zechariah 11:13; fulfilled in Matthew 27:5-7

        7. Messiah is to be born of a virgin 

        Isaiah 7:14; fulfilled in Matthew 1:18-2:1; Luke 1:26-35

        8. Messiah is to be hated without cause

        Isaiah 49:7; Psalm 69:5; fulfilled in John 15:24-25

        9. Messiah is to be silent before His accusers 

        Isaiah 53:7; fulfilled in Matthew 27:12

        10. Messiah is to be executed by crucifixion, by having His hands and feet pierced 

        Psalm 22:16; fulfilled in John 19:28

        11. Messiah is to be given vinegar to quench His thirst Psalm 69:22; fulfilled in Matthew 27:34

        12. Messiah is to be executed without having a bone broken Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:21; fulfilled in John 19:33-36

        13. Messiah is to be buried with the rich when dead Isaiah 53:9; fulfilled in Matthew 27:57-60

        14. Messiah is to be raised from the dead
        Isaiah 53:9-10; Psalm 2:7; 16:10; fulfilled in Matthew 28:1-20; Acts 2:23-36;13;33-37; 1 Corinthians 11:4-6

        15. Messiah is to be executed by crucifixion as a thief Psalm 22:16; Zechariah 12:10; Isaiah 53:5, 12; fulfilled in Luke 23:33; John 20:25; Matthew 27:38; Mark 5:27, 28

        We find that the chance that any man might have lived to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10^17.” That would be one in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates:

        “ . . . we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly. Blindfold a man and tell him that he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing just eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote in their own wisdom.

        “Now these prophecies were either given by inspiration of God or the prophets just wrote them as they thought they should be. In such a case the prophets had just one chance in 10^17 of having them come true in any man, but they all came true in Christ [Mashiach].

“This means that the fulfillment of just eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of those [eight] prophecies to a definiteness which lacks only one chance in 10^17 of being absolute.”

        Why didn’t most Jewish people believe in Jesus, and why were they so taken in by false Messiahs like Bar Kochba and Shabbetai Zevi?

        To understand this, one must realize that by the time of Jesus, the Messianic hope had become greatly politicized in the minds of the people. They were seeking deliverance from the tyranny of Rome. Although the Scripture spoke both of the sufferings and of the victories of the Messiah, the victorious aspect had become uppermost in the minds of the common people because of the Roman domination. This “lopsided” view of the Messiah has stuck with Jewish people, and the politicization of the Messianic hope has continued. Thus the hope of a political rather than a spiritual Messiah contributes to both the acceptance of people such as Bar Kochba, and the rejection of Jesus in his role as a Messiah.

        although the Talmudic rabbis concurred that Isaiah 53 was a prediction of the Messiah, by medieval times the pressure from those who applied this prophecy to Jesus was so great that Rashi, that greatest medieval Biblical scholar, reinterpreted the chapter and said it referred to the nation of Israel. This interpretation is maintained today by many Jewish scholars, though it only dates back to the Middle Ages.

        Study the prophecies yourself and ponder the mathematical probability of just one person fulfilling even a few of these specific prophecies. Even more importantly, be intellectually honest and open to truth. Pray. Ask the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob if Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel. He will answer you and lead you into all truth.

        • RT says:

          “Study the prophecies yourself and ponder the mathematical probability of just one person fulfilling even a few of these specific prophecies.”

          I will convert to Christianity if only ONE prophecy fits reasonably Jesus… Are you willing to check at them? You may pick the one of your choice that Jesus “fulfilled”. The power of the Christians is in the number, but as Rabbi Skobac said “365 times 0 equals still 0!”

          P.S. some of the 365 prophecies were deleted from the list, as they did not fit Jesus at all!

        • Dina says:

          Storm says, “It is important to begin by saying that for one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is not the Messiah, no amount of evidence will be convincing.”

          And I say, “It is important to begin by saying that for one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is the Messiah, no amount of evidence will be convincing.”

          I also say: please back up with evidence your slander of the rabbis, claiming they interpreted Isaiah 53 as being about the messiah but then bowed to pressure and changed their interpretation. If you cannot find the evidence, please apologize to the rabbis and the Jewish people for this despicable slander.

          You also wrote that, “During this revolt, one of the most famous figures in Jewish history, Rabbi Akiva, proclaimed him to be “King Messiah.” Unfortunately, Bar Kochba, Akiva and thousands of Jews were killed in 135 C.E. when the Romans stormed the stronghold of Betar.”

          So how do you know Bar Kochba wasn’t the real messiah? Because he was killed? By the Romans, no less? Ahem, ahem….

          Your list of prophecies is absurd. You clearly haven’t read what Tanach has to say for itself, in context. If you search this website for them you will see how easily they are refuted.

          One last point: you claim that the Messiah is supposed to be spiritual rather than political. By spiritual I assume you mean saved from our sins and by political I assume you mean saved from oppression by our enemies. Correct me if I’m wrong. If not, please provide clear proof from the Hebrew Bible that the job of the Messiah is to save us from our sins. No hints, please.

          • RT says:

            I choose Bar Kochba! He might still come back from the dead… AND he did not ask to be worshiped as a god (That’s a nice plus as I have not to commit idolatry worshipping a messiah/god)

        • Jim says:

          Storm,

          I am delighted to find that we have an area of agreement. I believed that this would be more difficult for us to find than it was. However, you have affirmed an idea that you will find in my article. You write: “It’s important to base your study’s on the scriptures as a whole not one verse that stands alone lest it become a stumbling block.” This is an important principle, and it is this principle that shows that Jesus did not fulfill the long list of Messianic prophecies that the Church has strung together.

          You can see this in my article. Strangely, though you admit that context is important, you quote passages that clearly are not Messianic and treat them as if they were. Even stranger, I mentioned some of these in my article. For the sake of brevity, I am not going to explain every “Messianic prophecy” you listed. Other places have gone into these at great length. I second the recommendation of listening to Rabbi Skobac on this. You can find his work on this matter on truth2u.org. He goes over 365 prophecies.

          Allow me to touch on the so-called virgin birth prophecy, because I already touched on it in the article. I can only wonder at your posting this as a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus considering it does appear in my article. It is clear that Isaiah 7:14 is not about the Messiah. It is about a child born during the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. This is clear from the chapter and the verses following 7:14. “[The child] shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted” (Is. 7:15-16). This has nothing to do with Jesus, nor anything to do with the Messiah. This lone verse has indeed become a stumbling block to the Church, because it does not read the scriptures as a whole.

          Regarding the birthplace of the Messiah: Micah 5:2 is not about the birthplace of the Messiah. Indeed, it is not talking about a little town, but a little clan. It is talking about the Messiah being descended from the house of David. If you read Matthew carefully, you will see he misquotes it. But even if it were about the birthplace of the Messiah, virtually nobody knew he was born there, as I mentioned in the article. And it is not as if Jesus had a birth certificate.

          A major point of my article is that the supposed fulfillments of prophecy by Jesus were unobserved. He is supposed to have been born of a virgin. No one verified that Mary was a virgin, and therefore this is not a sign and cannot establish Jesus as the Messiah. He is supposed to have been born in Bethlehem. Yet the people of his time did not know that he had been born in Bethlehem. Claiming to have fulfilled prophecy in secret is not proof of anything.

          Storm, do you not see that there is a serious problem with the prophecies Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled. You have to take his word for it that these things happened at all.

          Imagine the following scenario, if you please. You are driving to the store one day. You stop at a light and a man runs up to your car and opens the door. He shouts that he is a police officer, and that he must commandeer your vehicle. Smartly, you ask to see his badge. He tells you that it is in his pocket, but you can take his word for it that he is a police officer. And he is not trying to steal your car. Really. No, really. Would you give him your car? I doubt it.

          But this is what the Church has done. It has told you that Jesus is the Messiah. But there are no evidences of this. Oh, he fulfilled umpteen prophecies (that do not relate to the Messiah.) Certainly, he fulfilled them where you could not see them, “but,” the Church says, “you can trust us.” Also, he rose from the dead like he promised… just, in secret… “but, believe us, it happened.” And he was transfigured… also in secret.

          If you would not yield your automobile to a police officer that will not show you his badge, will you yield your devotion to a Messiah that will offer no proofs.

          And, of course, you say that you have many proofs. But, please, take your own words to heart and see that reading a verse in isolation will only serve as a stumbling block. The thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah had nothing to do with the Messiah. Psalm 22 is not about the Messiah; it is about David. (And it actually says nothing about hands or feet being pierced. That is a mistranslation.) Isaiah 53 does not say that the servant would be buried with the rich. It says he would be buried with criminals. (It says that he would die with the rich. Jesus does this backward, and clearly does not fulfill it.) When John quotes Ps. 41 in regard to Jesus being betrayed, it is obvious that that the psalmist is not writing about the Christian Jesus. Earlier in the psalm, the figure confesses his sin. Christians hold that Jesus never sinned. (This also appeared in my article, and it is a bit flabbergasting that you would ignore that these passages have already been addressed.) All of these passages serve as a good reminder that taking a portion of the prophets’ words will turn that passage into a stumbling block. It will leave the mind of the reader confused and prevent him from knowing the truth.

          Jim

          • Jim says:

            Rabbi Blumenthal,

            Thank you for posting this link. Please forgive my own omission of it.

            Jim

    • Alan says:

      Storm,

      Did you start learning Tanakh in depth after you became a believer in Jesus or did you already have a solid knowledge of Tanakh before you became a believer in Jesus?

    • Dina says:

      Storm asks:

      “Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him?”

      Is it really so hard to grasp that God is powerful enough to be able to forgive without the need for a sinless human sacrifice (Genesis 4:7, Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 18 and 33, 1 Kings 8:46-53)?

      Is it so hard to grasp that God is powerful enough to hear the prayers of those who call to Him sincerely without the need for an intermediary (Psalm 145:18)?

      Is it so hard to grasp that God is fair enough and reasonable enough not to demand the impossible of the humans whom He created with built-in weaknesses–namely, perfect obedience to the law or eternal condemnation?

      Is it so hard to grasp that God is so merciful and so compassionate that when He judges us He will account for the frailties that He Himself created us with (Psalm 78:38-39)?

      • RT says:

        Amen! Well said Dina!

      • Eleazar says:

        Storm wrote:

        “Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him?”

        So Storm you are admitting what no orthodox Christian admits, that you believe God has “parts”. You admit as much when you say ” is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth…” . An “aspect” is a part. You are saying there is one God but many “parts” of God. Also in saying that, you are saying Jesus was “part God and part man”. This are things that fly directly in the face of trinitarian apologetics; indeed against the Athanasian Creed itself ( “not dividing the substance”). The Athanasian Creed being the most basic defining doctrinal statement of the Christian faith.

        In other words, like most who come here you are not really a Christian in the generally accepted meaning of the word. Just as any potential convert to Judaism who would boldly deny any of the Ten Commandments would not be accepted by a Beit Din as a genuine convert.

    • Dina says:

      Storm says that Jesus won’t return until the Jews accept him as king.

      Not. Going. To. Happen.

      Christians have failed for the last 2000 years to convert the Jewish people, and that is not for lack of trying.

      Christians need to own up to the following uncomfortable problems:

      1. God promised that He would always preserve a remnant of the Jewish people. The original movement of Jesus followers did not survive as a Jewish movement. To the contrary, the much-maligned Pharisees constituted the only group of Jews to survive the destruction of the Second Temple and to form a continuous chain of biological descent connected with strong Torah observance. Every single group that strayed from this “rabbinic” Judaism has fallen by the wayside, including converts to Christianity whose descendants without exception assimilate into the general population. (We see this happening now with groups like Reform Judaism which do not accept Divine authorship of the Torah and who are assimilating at a rate of 80% according to the Pew Research Center.)

      2. God selected the Jewish people to be His witnesses (Isaiah 43:10,12; Ibid. 44:8), and last I checked there was no expiration date on that status. Furthermore, God promised that His covenant with the people of Israel means that He has placed His spirit upon us and His words in our mouths from now and forever (Isaiah 59:21). And last I checked, forever means, well, forever.

      3. Christianity was imposed by force upon the entire European continent, and despite some holdouts for a little while, eventually every single other culture succumbed, from the Norsemen to the Druids to the Picts. The only people to resist the message of Christianity was a scattered and weakened small group of people with no central leadership. Christians need to ask themselves how this is possible. It should not have been possible for such a small, weakened scattered group to resist the enormous pressure exerted by Christendom to make its religion extinct when other, larger, stronger religions could not.

      • Storm says:

        It will happen just as the prophet spoke:

        See, a day shall come for יהוה, and your spoil shall be divided in your midst. And I shall gather all the gentiles to battle against Yerushalayim. And the city shall be taken, the houses plundered, and the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into exile, but the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. And יהוה shall go forth, and He shall fight against those gentiles, as He fights in the day of battle ~ Zeḵaryah ‭14:1-3‬.

        You should all stop hiding behind this verse: Ěl is not a man, to lie; nor a son of man, to repent! Has He said, and would He not do it; or spoken, and would not confirm it?~ Bemiḏbar ‭23:19‬. As an excuse to reject Gods only atonement for your sin as it’s talking about HaShems character not being fickle like mans it’s not stating that He would never become a man. Read context!!

        Here’s a website for you all to reeducate yourself in a proper manner pleasing to God: http://www.facingeachother.com

        And don’t forget: Anyone who has disregarded the Torah of Mosheh dies without compassion on the witness of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think shall he deserve who has trampled the Son of Elohim underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was set apart as common, and insulted the Spirit of favour?~ Iḇ`rim ‭10:28-29‬.

        • Alan says:

          Storm,
          Sorry but the verse doesn’t say He is not LIKE a man, it says He IS NOT a man – in what way? – He is not fickle and doesn’t lie.

          Also Hoshea 11:

          9 I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I AM GOD AND NOT A MAN, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not come in fury.

          Again, it could have said “I A GOD WHO IS NOT LIKE A MAN.”

          • Alan says:

            Storm,

            You have admitted that God is not a man. You also said that “He became a man in the body of Yeshua”. This is confusing. Do you mean that before Jesus, God wasn’t a man but since Jesus until today He is a man? Or do you mean that even today He is not a man? This is very confusing. In what way, then, is Jesus worthy of being worshipped as divine if you agree that God is not a man?

          • Alan says:

            Storm,
            Those missionaries in that video know they can only dupe Jews, like themselves, who have only superficial or no knowledge of Tanakh. Even many Orthodox Jews have little knowledge of the books of the Prophets such as Isaiah. Everybody on this blog knows that missionaries only have a chance of fooling people who don’t know you can’t learn verses in Tanakh out of context.

          • LarryB says:

            Storm
            I find your video so offensive. –Those ‘expleative’ lying Rabbis hiding the truth, and forbidding the portion of Torah from being read in the synagogue, that would save us all–.
            Is this all you got? Insults? A video? I have a question for you, who does Isaiah tell us the servant is? Remember servant is only mentioned once in Isaiah 53 and messiah is mentioned Zero times. You would probably object and point to John 8:44 here but we need to focus on Isaiah since he has the hidden truth you desire. Here’s one of many references Isaiah makes to who the servant is, Is:44-21. “Remember these things, Jacob and Israel, for you are my servant: I fashioned you to be my servant. Israel do not forget me.” Because you Storm are not one of the servants are you allowed to forget? Re-read Jhn 8:44 and tell me who is the liar and refuses to uphold the truth.

          • Alan says:

            Thanks Larry!!!! The video is saying that the rabbis know that Jesus is the messiah and are purposely hiding it from the people –

            https://outreachjudaism.org/are-the-jews-hiding-something/

          • Dina says:

            Storm,

            Please explain in your own words the Jewish position on Jesus from the Jewish perspective.

            Thanks!

          • robster2016 says:


            That’s correct G-d is not a man He’s spirit but He become a man in the body of Yeshua to atone for your sin. Without Him you will die in your sin

            kind of confused with what any of this means. the spirit became meat/flesh which would mean god became meat.

            how much of spirit became meat? 10 % 50 % or 100 %

            if only some, then you mean “without some of him you will die…”

            ?

          • Alan says:

            Robster,

            Storm is either saying the meat is god or god is meat or jesus is meat or meat is jesus or meat is spirit or spirit is meat. I want to become a vegetarian.

        • Alan says:

          And please help me understand why I should believe that Jesus is Hashem? My fathers taught me that if anyone who looks like a human says he’s God, I should think he’s a liar and run away from him and his followers. So I’m asking you – how can I be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is Hashem?

        • Dina says:

          Storm, I would like you to put aside for one moment your eagerness to see us all “die without compassion” (a sure sign of Christian love) and consider for one moment the following question:

          Are you hear to debate with us, a process which requires both sides hearing each other out, attempting to understand each other’s arguments, and responding directly to those arguments in a process that leads to greater clarity? Or are you hear to preach at us?

          I ask this because you have not responded to a single argument I made.

          I look forward to your reply.

          • Dina says:

            Storm, I can’t watch videos at the moment. If you would summarize for me an answer to my question that the video is purportedly saying, I will be grateful.

          • Alan says:

            Dina,
            I watched the video. The whole point of the 6 minute video is to prove that Jesus is God and not just the Son of God.

          • Dina says:

            In that case, I would like Storm to answer the question: is he here to engage with us in honest debate or just to preach at us?

            I think I can speak for everyone here: we are not interested in being preached at, but we would be delighted to debate with you Storm, if you are open to that.

            There was a time in history when Christians forced Jews to listen to sermons by sending a preacher to our synagogues. Do you really want to perpetuate this ugly practice?

          • LarryB says:

            This in Monte Judah of lion and lamb ministries. He has his own version of Messianic Judaism complete with his own recipe for anointing oil. Maybe he gave it to Colonel Sanders for his chicken and liked it so much he grew a beard to.

    • LB says:

      Storm
      Can the creator become the created? Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift?
      Can God make square circles? If the creator can become the created the other two questions don’t seem so difficult.

      • robster2016 says:

        yes, it seems like storms god can also stop being god. it seems like he can make the flesh bit back into god by doing reverse engineering. so a christian should really be worshipping the flesh

    • LarryB says:

      Storm
      Just for clarity, what do you believe? You start with the question “Was Jesus ‘Yeshua’ God?” Then it kind of looks like you believe he is God, but you end with another question, So, did Yeshua claim to be the Messiah. Which is it? Do you believe him to be God, the son of God, or the messiah? Maybe you believe this is a different trinity?

    • KAVI says:

      Dear Storm,
      You started off fairly well even though not everything said was entirely on the mark…

      Could I offer a friendly suggestion?

      From examining the videos you presented, you really do need to find better Messianic teachers…

      And although I candidly say that I do not think any single teacher in our time has all truth… still, by spending more time learning from better “orthodox” messianic leaders and reading Tanakh/BC– you will be far better set on the solid foundation of L-RD Yeshua.
      ___________________________

      Now then… what you could have addressed is Jim’s parable named “The Doctoral Candidate”.

      Like many, if not all, of Jim’s lengthy writings that I am aware of, his essays invariably contain a false premise… and this one is no exception.

      Jim: “The Christian claim is that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.”

      Kavi: What nonsense!

      Another classic case of creating a “straw man argument”…

      From the very first words in Tanakh,
      “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth”
      …G-d did not bother to “prove” Himself…
      …Yes, His Words and Deed can be a powerful testimony… but neither are in any way indisputable “proofs” to the skeptic.

      Likewise, L-RD Yeshua never said He came to “prove” anything to mankind…

      …Instead, Yeshua came fulfill the Truth of G-d as testified by Moses and the Prophets.

      “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,
      “yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” [John 5]

      Both the Tanakh and BC/NT contain testimony concerning L-RD Messiah Redeemer Yeshua…
      …and like both, mankind can either believe the testimony or not.

      ___________________________

      BTW> Since Tanakh is a testimony… any skeptic could apply Jim’s own standards of “proof” to “disprove” or “discredit” so many matters in Tanakh that we would dangerously risk running out of internet ink… it’s simply too easy a task…

      … but skeptics there will always be until the final judgment… and then there will be no more skepticism in front of the Almighty Judge.

      So, Storm… unless both Jew and Gentile “hear” the testimony about The Messiah Redeemer and “see” the Light of L-RD Yeshua dawn in their uncircumcised hearts, they will never find forgiveness and future hope to be with G-d forever…

      [Jeremiah 9:25-26, Ezekiel 20, Psalm 23, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 6, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 65, Isaiah 66]
      ___________________________
      ___________________________

      • RT says:

        Without “proof” of Jesus resurrection, there is no reason whatsoever to believe he came up from the grave, or that he fulfilled Isaiah 53. Without Jesus coming out of the grave, there is no reason to believe in Jesus more than in bar Kokhba.

        Jeremiah 9:25-26: In context it already happened, and it was because they worship other gods. This is exactly why Jews refuse to accept Jesus and in truth, by refusing Jesus, they embrace G-d.

        Ezekiel 20: Each of you, get rid of the vile images you have set your eyes on, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

        As the vile image is a created thing, so Jesus also was create. You defile yourself with your idol. A MAN!

        Psalm 23: The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing
        David trusted in YVHV, not in Jesus or the messiah. You trust in a non-god, The Jews trust in G-d!

        Isaiah 1: “You will be ashamed because of the sacred oaks
        in which you have delighted;
        you will be disgraced because of the gardens
        that you have chosen.

        Yes, Israel was discarded because of its idolatry, and that’s exactly why the Jews refuse your idol Jesus, and even died before accepting it. Those who accepted your idol Yeshu are no more Israel by the way!

        Isaiah 6: So the holy seed shall be its stump.”
        That does not talk about Jesus, but about Israel’s remnant who will follow G-d, not any gods…

        Isaiah 9: Please do yourself a favor and read that in context… Jesus DID not leave in the time of Rezin! (You probably don’t even know who he is!)

        • Alan says:

          RT,
          I like and appreciate everything you wrote. Just one thing I’m not sure what you meant – ” Israel was discarded because of its idolatry,” I’m not sure how you’re using the word discarded.

      • RT says:

        By ““orthodox” messianic leaders “, do you mean “Christian with a Kippah”? They must believe in the Trinity and by faith alone without the work of the Torah…. Where does the Trinity come from Kavi? Nicea… and who decided that it was the truth? Your dear Catholic friend.

        “…Instead, Yeshua came fulfill the Truth of G-d as testified by Moses and the Prophets.”

        Still preaching Kavi? You have 0 testimony from the prophet, and we have shown you. Those prophecies are not prophecies, twisted prophecies, taken out-of-context prophecies, or simply will become a prophecy when Jesus actually comes back and fulfill his first prophecy!

        “…and like both, mankind can either believe the testimony or not.”

        I also can believe that Leprechaun are true! You must believe in the Leprechaun Kavi to have eternal life, because I said so!

        “Jim’s own standards of “proof” to “disprove” or “discredit” so many matters in Tanakh ”

        Mont Sianai: ALL Israel, men, women, children (Millions of people) heard G-d speaking to them.

        Jesus resurrection: was seen by his twelve follower (including Judas of course 1 Cor 15).

        ” unless both Jew and Gentile” believe in Jesus they will never find forgiveness and burn in hell forever” = Replacement theology in disguise, but you call yourself a dispensationalist!

        • KAVI says:

          Storm,
          As you can see, no one has argued that Jim’s “straw man” argument is nothing more than just a “straw man” argument….

          __________________

          So, let’s go on to examine a couple statements that were made…

          RT: “Mount Sinai: ALL Israel, men, women, children (Millions of people) heard G-d speaking to them.”

          Kavi: …and the Atheists and Skeptics have field days with such statements.

          Facts are,
          [a] Nearly all those Millions rejected what was heard and were put to death in the desert wilderness…

          “You have been rebellious against the L-RD ever since I have known you.” [Deuteronomy 9]

          “Therefore I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest.'” [Psalm 95]

          [b] By comparison, a far smaller crowd witnessed L-RD Yeshua ascend back to the Ancient of Days– yet, untold millions of Gentiles have accepted the testimony of G-d as written by Moses and the Prophets.

          …just as prophet Isaiah foretold [Isaiah 28 & 49 & 65, Genesis 12 & 15]

          …and, just as Yeshua foretold [Mark 4]

          __________________

          RT: “I also can believe that Leprechaun are true!”

          Kavi: …thus saith Atheists and Skeptics regarding Orthodox Jewish Theology.

          _________________

          RT: “You have 0 testimony from the prophet, and we have shown you.”

          Kavi: On the contrary, no one has provided “proofs” of anything… interpretative arguments, yes… “proofs”, no…

          Facts are,
          Tanakh is a massive testimony of G-d– and Israel has a poor record of interpreting anything correctly as prophesied over and over (and over) again by the Prophets… it’s a living testimony to the blindness and deafness of G-d’s servant Israel.
          [Isaiah 28 & 42, etc]

          And it’s a blindness and deafness that will continue until the exiles are forced to come back by G-d where only then does He glean out the few righteous remnant from among the unrighteous many.
          [Ezekiel 36 & 20, Isaiah 1 & 6 & 8, Jeremiah 3:14, etc]

          __________________

          RT: “” unless both Jew and Gentile” believe in Jesus they will never find forgiveness and burn in hell forever””

          Kavi: RT, let’s correct your misquotation…

          “…unless both Jew and Gentile “hear” the testimony about The Messiah Redeemer and “see” the Light of L-RD Yeshua dawn in their uncircumcised hearts, they will never find forgiveness and future hope to be with G-d forever…”

          Facts are,
          When G-d calls the exiles back for the sake of His own Holy Name, most of the exiles will be found in rebellion and meet a terrible end of eternal condemnation….
          [Ezekiel 20 & 36, Zechariah 12 and 14, Daniel 12, Isaiah 66]

          Yes… only a tiny remnant of exhiles will be saved because, just like the days of Noah, Abram, Moses, and the Prophets, only a paltry number actually believe in G-d’s L-RD Messianic Kinsman Redeemer
          [Genesis 3 & 15, Exodus 33 & 34, Isaiah 1 & 6 & 8, Jeremiah 3:14, etc]

          …As such, G-d Himself, through Ezekiel and Isaiah, dispels the Orthodox Rabbinic “remnant” theory…

          As to the Gentiles? They have by then already come to faith in L-RD Yeshua and will return to earth as holy ones with the Holy One leading them [Zechariah 14]…

          “I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me.
          “I said, ‘Here am I, here am I,’ To a nation which did not call on My name. “I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts…” [Isaiah 65]

          “The L-RD says, “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” [Isaiah 49]

          __________________

          BTW> I’ve already heard the Orthodox “arguments” which, when taken as a whole, fail the test of a consistent hermeneutic from Genesis throughout.

          “To whom would He teach knowledge,
          And to whom would He interpret the message?
          Those just weaned from milk?
          Those just taken from the breast?

          “For He says,
          ‘Order on order, order on order,
          Line on line, line on line,
          A little here, a little there.’”

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

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

          __________________

          • Nikola says:

            KAVI, nothing better than when you catch yourself in a web of lies. So now Psalm 95 is about Land of Israel, and not Shabbat?
            Typical Christian deception. Use the verses as they suit your current narrative. But God makes you stumble. That’s why your whole “New Testament” is full of contradictions and nonsense. Of course it could have been refined over centuries, but God made sure to leave it in disarray so that it’s clear it teaches false doctrine.
            Like, for instance, Paul’s testimony that 12 apostles saw Jesus after resurrection, although there were only 11 left. And, oh by the way, the twelveth guy, Judas, died both by hanging and bursting open in the field. Seriously, how can you truly believe these schizophrenic texts? Don’t even dare comparing that nonsense to Tanakh, let alone Torah.

          • LarryB says:

            Nikola
            “but God made sure to leave it in disarray so that it’s clear it teaches false doctrine.”
            If you don’t believe that just look at Kavis writing style. For me it takes disarray to a whole new level. I can’t understand anything he says.

          • KAVI says:

            Nikola,
            You only “think” I erred because you apparently could not perceive the line of logic…

            …a logic which addressed the utter rebelliousness of millions of Israel who,
            [a] G-d did not grant the rebels entrance into Canaan,
            and
            [b] G-d will not grant the rebels entrance into the eternal land.

            …as to the latter point, it is quite clear these rebels are eternally condemned [Psalm 95 and Daniel 12 and Isaiah 66]

            ___________________

            However… now that you mention the subject,

            Let’s further compare the rebellious house of Israel who,
            [a] rejected the voice of G-d
            [b] did not enter the land of promise during their lives
            [c] are eternally rejected from entering the land of promise

            In contrast to the True house of Israel [both Jew and Gentile] who,
            [a] accept the voice of G-d
            [b] enter into True Shabbat Shalom with G-d during their lives
            [c] will eternally share in G-d’s gifted inheritance

            …just as the prophets foretold [Isaiah 49 & 65, etc]

            …and, just as Yeshua foretold [Mark 4]

            …again, very straightforward and reasonable to both Jew and Gentile seeking G-d’s forgiveness of sin by the original and most ancient path… through L-RD Yeshua, G-d’s Anointed Redeemer.

            ___________________

          • RT says:

            Kavi, believe whatever you want, I don’t care and won’t argue with your “proven” way… Jesus is the messiah for you and nobody will make you change your mind. It does not change the fact that you are on a JEWISH website and that you are quite annoying!

          • RT says:

            Kavi’s facts: Jews are wicked and rebellious while those who follow Jesus are all saints. Those who are not were not “true” followers of Jesus, so they don’t count…

            Kavi’s Fact 2: The tiny Jewsih remnant that will be saved are the convert to Christianity, but will deny that I believe in replacement theology.

            Kavi’s fact number 3: I say I love the JEWS but in fact I want to convert them to my religion. I say “rabbinic” her and there as some pejorative word, but light the Sabbath candles, pronounce the blessings and wear a Yarmulke (all RABBINIC traditions!) just to look Jewish!

            Kavi’s fact number 4: Each time I read the Old testament, I don’t try to apply it to myself, I only want to see how bad the Jews were…

      • Jim says:

        A note on a recent deception:

        Kavi wrote to Storm: “BTW>Since Tanakh is a testimony…any skeptic could apply Jim’s own standards of “proof” to “disprove” or “discredit” so many matters in Tanakh that we would dangerously risk running out of internet ink…it’s simply too easy a task…”

        This is a lie.

        As can be seen in my essay, one of the standards that I employ in critiquing Christian claims is that when it quotes the Tanach, it should not alter the meaning of Tanach by ignoring the context or exchanging one word for another. For example, Isaiah 7:14 is clearly not about a child to be born hundreds of years in the future. It is not a Messianic prophecy. To make this a prophecy about Jesus, one has to ignore the rest of the passage. This is not some impossible standard that I have erected against which Tanach would also fail.

        Indeed, as my essay illustrates, the Christian also recognizes this standard. At one point, Christians applied a passage to Jesus, believing it to be Messianic. It sounded a lot like Jesus. But then, they realized that the passage was referring to false prophets. Once they realized this, many stopped applying it to Jesus. The reason they stopped is because the context defined the figure for them in a way they did not like. So, the Christian recognizes that the context of a passage is important.

        What is duplicitous is to then still apply all the other non-Messianic passages to Jesus, ignoring the context in those passages.

        And, of course, Christians agree with this standard. They attempt to employ it whenever it suits their purpose. Obviously, they will defend the words of Jesus from such abuse, frequently appealing to context when his words are in question. And they do the same thing with Tanach. Christians appeal to the context of Tanach, whenever they believe it suits their purposes. Whenever it does not, however, they ignore it.

        The standard I apply is not a dubious one whereby Tanach would also fall. The double-standard is not mine; it is Kavi’s. And it is a lie to imply otherwise.

        Regarding the matter of the resurrection, there is no double standard. One can read my work here to see that I have a standard that is applied to the Sinai event and the annunciation of the resurrection: https://judaismresources.net/2017/06/11/pentecost-vs-shavuot-by-jim/. That is to say, Tanach passes my standards of criticism and the NT fails. It is important to note, too, that I judge the NT by what it says and not by outside sources. I test its credibility.

        It is easy for Kavi to make these claims, because he does not actually identify what standard I employ and how it would sink Tanach under the weight of an impossible standard of proof. But in saying them, he has misrepresented my argument, likely in order to avoid answering it. Kavi has attempted to peddle a deception.

        Jim

  4. dneff613 says:

    Reblogged this on Daily Musar and commented:
    The fact that the Church needed to perpetrate such a fraud tells one all he needs to know. He can rest assured that Jesus is not the Messiah. If he had been, no need to misrepresent Tanach would exist. A little scrutiny of the Christian case for Jesus shows the proofs to be all hollow, mere nothingness. Some of the supposed proofs must be accepted on faith, denying their ability to prove anything, like the resurrection. Other proofs were based on fraud, which are easily exposed with a little study. All those things meant to establish Jesus as the Messiah, when exposed to the bright light of truth, evaporate as the dew evaporates under the warm sun.

  5. Jim says:

    Storm,

    In answer to your post here: https://judaismresources.net/2017/08/02/the-doctoral-candidate-a-parable-by-jim/#comment-38457 .

    Thank you for your response to my article. It is difficult to read the work of someone who disagrees with your faith. It can leave one feeling quite uncomfortable, so I would like to commend you on the act of bravery involved in reading the work of someone that so strongly opposes your faith. And I appreciate you taking the time to formulate a response. However, I would like to respond to your comment. Respectfully, I would like to show why most of what you wrote does not address the argument of my article and hopefully bring a little clarity to the topic.

    You begin your response by asking whether or not Yeshu was God (but I think you mean “is”?) And you go on to quote Prov. 30. Immediately, you have diverted from the topic. The topic is not “What did Jesus claim?” The topic is “Were Jesus’ claims verified?” Granted, it is an important to discuss why Jesus was not God and why one ought not to worship him. But in this article, that was not the subject.

    So, when you ask if it is “so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, etc.?” the question is not relevant. Whether or not such a thing can be imagined is not the question. The question is whether or not this is a mere claim, unsubstantiated, or if some proof can be brought in favor of the claim.

    Listing instances in the NT where it is claimed that Jesus was God is of no answer. My article did not argue that the NT never makes any such claim. My argument is that Jesus’ claim to Messiahship, whatever that means to the believer, is unsubstantiated.

    Please feel free to reread the article to understand my meaning. It may also help to read “Pentecost vs. Shavuot” to which this article was meant to add further elucidation. You can find that article here: https://judaismresources.net/2017/06/11/pentecost-vs-shavuot-by-jim/

    And please look through R’ Blumenthal’s articles. This is his site, and he has written many wonderful things on this topic and others, showing why one need not and ought not put his trust in a human being but ought rather to rely upon HaShem.

    Jim

  6. robster2016 says:

    “Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him?”

    so you want to have relationship with CREATED aspect of god? okay, now tell me, WHAT was the POINT for your god to tell ppl that they took for god

    a human who needed air to breath (Isaiah 2:22)

    you are telling me THAT you want to do spiritual adultery with created aspect of god and your god is telling that people took a human who breaths, as god.

    • robster2016 says:

      “Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that the same God who is powerful enough to have created the entire universe, is also capable of sending an aspect of Himself down to earth in the form of a human male, so that man could both better understand and relate to Him?”

      your christian brethren say that that which “makes up god” and that which makes up human DOES not mix. God brings things into existences which did not exist, LIKE tomorrow and the day after. if God does NOT mix even according to the christian argument, then he is a SEPARATE being which does not get penetrated by finite. and he definitely cannot mix into creation otherwise he done idolatry with himself. i ask , if God is all powerful and according to the christian argument 2 natures DON’T mix, what does it even mean ” down to earth in the form of a human male” ???? you will always have a separate THING in existence.

  7. Concerned Reader says:

    Storm, I can’t watch videos at the moment. If you would summarize for me an answer to my question that the video is purportedly saying, I will be grateful.

    Dina, I watched the video. It is the most absurd use of language I have seen.

    Mr. Monte uses the hebrew word for “stone” and says that it means “Av-Ben” IE the names father and son are one in the word “stone” and do not imply separation, IE even though Jesus is called “son” he is still G-d. Its linguistic acrobatics where words don’t mean what they say and they don’t say what they mean.

    Its a weaved web meant to save an internally inconsistent doctrine.

    LarryB speaking of Colonel Sanders. Once a buddy and I were in a restaurant, talking about JC.

    My buddy was wondering whether Jesus could have just “got up” after being in the tomb for 3 days.

    I was telling him that “not really because he would have been wrapped in a burial shroud (hundreds of pounds of material) and anointed with oils, herbs, and spices so his body wouldn’t be disturbed, sort of like a kind of mummification.” He says “herbs and spices? Is that original recipe or extra crispy?”

  8. Dina says:

    Can this Storm dude make a single argument on his own?

    • Alan says:

      And how would he like it if we dropped anti-Jesus videos on his messianic blog.

      I watched this video – it is foolish beyond belief. Just like the other videos he’s dropped on this site the only people who would be attracted to this are those who don’t have a strong background in Torah and Hebrew. Hashem + Miriam = Yeshu (not Yeshua, but Yeshu). And the first letters of 4 words of a verse of 7 words rearranged spells Yeshua and the last 3 letters of three words in the verse spell Moshiach. Even if this verse had something to do with Moshiach this would mean nothing, but the verse has nothing to do with Moshiach. The whole psalm is all about Hashem alone. Torah law says that gematria and letter patterns cannot be used to generate halacha or theology. They can only be used as a midrashic support for already kosher concepts. It is not kosher for just anyone to find their own gematria and claim that it proves what he wants it to prove. If a prophet or a holy person teaches a gematria then it is probably true if he is using it to reveal a deeper aspect of something that we already know is kosher and only as long as it doesn’t contradict Torah principles. These guys are trying to prove Jesus is Moshiach and the son of God from gematria and letter games! Not kosher Storm!

    • LarryB says:

      Dina
      I think this is a girl. Storm is a name from X-Men characters. Famous for conjuring up a lot of hot air, tornadoes, hurricanes, and whatever needed to save the planet.

  9. Storm Please read the comment policy before posting

    1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

  10. Jim says:

    Kavi,

    A first answer to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/1000-verses/

    You wrote that I erected a straw man when I wrote: “The Christian claim is that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.” I can hardly imagine that you have comforted Storm in any way with this claim. You have admitted that the resurrection proves nothing. I find this fascinating, and for the moment, I would like to accept your premise as true. I will agree with you that the resurrection proves nothing and accept for the sake of argument that no Christian ever claimed it did. Does this destroy my argument?

    For the moment, I am willing to leave aside whether or not Jesus had a responsibility to prove his claims. You argue that he had no such responsibility and that he did not “come to ‘prove’ anything to mankind…” If so, then we must ask why anyone should believe him, but for the moment, let us ignore that issue.

    “…Instead,” you argue, “Yeshua came to fulfill the Truth of G-d as testified by Moses and the Prophets.”

    You write this argument as if my parable did not address this point at all. In fact, I argued that it is only Christian abuse that allows him to read Jesus into Tanach. I gave a few well-known examples, even one that Christians have largely dropped, because it was damaging to their cause. And I pointed out that the method they used to determine that the passage that fell out of favor could not apply to Jesus disproved the other scriptures used by the Christian as well. This, you did not counter. You claim, but you do not demonstrate, that Jesus is found in Tanach. Your mere assertion does not establish it as fact.

    So, even if we accept that I erected a straw man, the conclusion remains the same: no proof for the Messiahship of Jesus has been produced. You have agreed that the resurrection is no proof at all, only disputing that Christians consider it proof. Then you pretended that I had not addressed what you consider the real proof, the testimony of Tanach. However, I had addressed that point in this article, to which you brought no counter-argument. You have not established the legitimacy of reading Jesus into the Tanach. Moreover, it is dishonest of you to pretend that this claim has not been answered, either in this article or elsewhere. R’ Blumenthal has given 1000 Verses that prove the opposite: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/1000-verses/ . In the end, the claim that I have blown down a straw man is irrelevant, because the other so-called proofs, the references to Jesus in Tanach, are nothing more than scriptural abuse, proofs that disappear under scrutiny.

    Jim

    • KAVI says:

      Jim: “In the end, the claim that I have blown down a straw man is irrelevant, because the other so-called proofs, the references to Jesus in Tanach, are nothing more than scriptural abuse, proofs that disappear under scrutiny.”

      Kavi: Well, at least we agree that your essay is a “straw man” argument.

      So, let’s address just a few items you mention,

      [a] “So-called proofs”- Orthodox Theology can claim no proofs for their own theology just as much as Messianics can claim no “proofs” for their theology.

      Both Faiths are based on testimony… not “proofs”

      Nonetheless, when it comes to a more rational and objective and consistent interpretation of Tanakh, Messianics (Jew and Gentile) can easily claim a stronger, more truthful understanding of G-d’s witness than Orthodox Judaism.

      [b] “Scriptural abuse”– such words form an “assertion”– they are neither “fact” nor “proof” of anything.

      [c] “Proofs that disappear under scrutiny”– Although I must credit your persistence, I cannot give credit to your desire to “resurrect” a dead essay which is based on a false premise.

      …so, it’s time to bury this dead essay and move on.

      _________________

      BTW> As to the Orthodox “1000 verses”– G-d has provided His own truthful counter-arguments that can be found by anyone who seeks out G-d.

      So, if one really wants to know the legitimate Messianic truth about Isaiah 53, Isaiah 7, Psalm 16, Daniel 9, and so, so many other passages of Scripture… it is strongly recommended one look beyond the Orthodox who G-d plainly describes as callous of heart, blind, and deaf. [Isaiah 6 & 28 & 42, etc]

      However, to both Jew and Gentile, who do true teshuva away from seeking self-righteousness and turn toward the Light of G-d’s Truth found in L-RD Yeshua… salvation has indeed reached to the ends of the earth in our lifetime:
      … just as G-d fortold to the Gentile Abram [Genesis 12 & 15]
      … just as G-d fortold through Isaiah [Isaiah 49 & 65]
      … just as L-RD Yeshua foretold [Mark 5]

      _________________

      • RT says:

        … the Orthodox who G-d plainly describes as callous of heart, blind, and deaf.

        KAVI, I can see that the tone of the follower of your blessed Messiah has not changed since the early church fathers. Are you trying to fool yourself that you love the Jewish people?

        http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

        • KAVI says:

          RT,
          Isaiah wrote harsh words from G-d Himself… so why pretend I am the one who condemns?

          And I heard the voice of the L-rd saying,
          “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

          Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
          And He said, “Go, and say to this people:

          “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
          keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
          Make the heart of this people dull,
          and their ears heavy,
          and blind their eyes;
          lest they see with their eyes,
          and hear with their ears,
          and understand with their hearts,
          and turn and be healed.”

          Then I said, “How long, O L-rd?”

          And He said:
          “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant,
          and houses without people,
          and the land is a desolate waste,
          and the Lord removes people far away,
          and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
          And though a tenth remain in it,
          it will be burned again,
          like a terebinth or an oak,
          whose stump remains
          when it is felled.”
          The holy seed is its stump.

          [Isaiah 6]

          Clearly, the vast majority of Israel will be condemned
          whereas G-d will reserve for Himself a small remnant.

          …and since you obviously don’t like G-d’s words, your beliefs not only fulfill the words of the Prophet, but also show contempt toward the Prophet as well…. shouldn’t it give you just the slightest pause about your open rebellion with G-d and His Messiah, L-RD Yeshua?
          _________________________

          BTW> Israel’s desire to rebel against G-d and persecute His Prophets is well reflected in Tanakh– it was the majority of Israel who wanted to stone Moses to death.

          Only the minority of Israel who believe in G-d’s Redeemer for salvation are the True Witnesses, the True Holy Seed, The True Servant Israel that G-d speaks about in the book of Isaiah… NOT the majority of Israel– that is, those who are described as the blind and deaf “servant” [Isaiah 42]
          _________________________

          • RT says:

            Any time a gentile try to curse G-d in the Bible, G-d forbids them!

            But God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed.”

            G-d can chastise anybody, you have no rights to curse people! Shame on you Kavi!

      • Jim says:

        Kavi,

        It is no surprise that you would misrepresent my words. I never agreed that I created a straw man, a term that I do not think you even understand. I only accepted it as a premise for the sake of argument. I will be answering that claim in a future comment, if God is willing. I have only put it off, because it is the least important and least interesting of your claims. This is because it is so obviously false, that it hardly needs to be answered. I cannot imagine anyone was fooled by such an empty claim. That you distort my words to show yourself triumphant is ugly. However, as I say, I am not surprised. If you have no compunctions about misrepresenting the words of HaShem, then obviously mine will be equally fair game.

        Jim

        • KAVI says:

          Jim: “I never agreed that I created a straw man.”

          Kavi: Very well, I accept that you did not agree– my mistake was in thinking you had disavowed your primary assertion as “irrelevant” in comparison to the other issues you raised.

          ____________________

          … but do allow me to mention that, after I proved your fundamental premise quite false based on the testimony of Tanakh, you seem to be quite alone in asserting you still have a valid argument.

          ____________________

      • Jim says:

        Kavi,

        Your constant denigration of the Jewish people does not help your case. I do not mean rhetorically, but logically. I mean that it does not substantiate your arguments. To the contrary, it reveals their paucity.

        Too frequently, you are unable to demonstrate the legitimacy of your scriptural interpretations. This is because those interpretations are not supported by the text. They are mere assertions, which is why you are unable to support them. Many of the ideas you would like to find in the text just do not appear. When you are challenged on this, then you appeal to the spiritual blindness of the Jew. This, you seem to think, settles the matter.

        This is not sound. Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Jewish people are blind and unable to understand Tanach whatsoever, as you assert. (When I write, “let us assume for the sake of argument,” I do not mean that it is so. Do not go saying that I agree with you.) Because the Jew does not understand a passage does not mean that you do. You will still have not demonstrated the truth of your position.

        You have made a logical error. You have assumed only two interpretations exist, the Jewish one and yours. Then, since the Jew is, according to you, always in error, your interpretation must be correct. But obviously, more than two interpretations might exist for a passage. Indeed, more than one Christian interpretation often exists for a passage. Therefore, when you argue that the Jewish position cannot be true, you have done nothing to establish your own position. The only way to prove your position will be through demonstration.

        To illustrate: consider the prophet like Moses. The Jew might say that this is referring to the office of prophecy, to prophets in general, rather than one particular prophet. You might say that this refers to Jesus. You will then declare that the Jew cannot be right, because of various scriptures (you do not understand). Therefore, the only remaining interpretation is that this prophet is Jesus. You win!

        Except, not really.

        Other interpretations appear. The Muslim says it is Muhammad. It could be a person in the future. It might be Joseph Smith. Your position is not proven just for having given yourself an excuse not to listen to the Jewish position. You will still have to demonstrate the truth of your position.

        The logic is faulty. You assume dichotomous interpretations, where there may be many. Ruling one out does not establish your interpretation as true. It does nothing for your case to call the Jewish people spiritually blind. Even if they are, you may be too. You can only prove your case through sound argument and legitimate usage of the text. Perhaps the reason you have to rely on maligning your interlocutors is because the text does not justify your abuse.

        Jim

        • RT says:

          “To illustrate: consider the prophet like Moses. ”

          Kavi, have you ever realized that the messenger of Exodus 23 would be the perfect Jesus if we omitted only a few words:

          See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way… Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you …

          It pretty much repeats the same as the “Prophet” of Deuteronomy. The only thing, it refers to an angel that was sent in the wilderness and thus could not fit Jesus. The prophet of Deut does not have such clarification, and that lack of clarification is used by you to prove your point. In other word, because the passage is ambiguous, then you can say it refers to Jesus. This is unfortunately the case of most Christians proof texts. I can say the same with Isaiah 53, because it is ambiguous who the servant is, you use that as a proof. Jim as a good point, even if Deut 30 does not speak of all the prophets, it still could be someone else. The same holds with Isaiah 53, which is a future prophecy (as no servant was ever exalted and very high)… I think it would be better to wait until the fulfillment of those prophecies, unless you put your trust in a lie!

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “To illustrate: consider the prophet like Moses.” Kavi, have you ever realized that the messenger of Exodus 23 would be the perfect Jesus if we omitted only a few words

            Kavi: RT, either you are learning from Jim’s mastery of “straw man” argumentation OR, you don’t realize I said nothing about a “prophet like Moses.”

            …I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt and pick the latter.

            Moses and the Prophets have provided more than enough TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE that G-d’s Anointed Kinsman Redeemer is L-RD Yeshua– and if you do not accept their testimony then,

            L-RD Yeshua said,
            “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father.
            Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope.
            If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me,
            because he wrote about Me.
            But since you do not believe what he wrote,
            how will you believe what I say?” [John 5]

            _________________________

            BTW> Again, I will repeat what we all know– i.e., Tanakh is a Testimony… not an indisputable “proof” to the vast majority of mankind.

            “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1]

            …although G-d did not bother to “prove” Himself…yet, G-d’s Words and Deeds can be powerful testimonial evidence.
            … but neither G-d’s Words or Deeds can in any way provide indisputable “proofs” to the skeptic.

            _________________________

          • RT says:

            Kavi you got me tire! Because Jesus said so, that must be true? Have you forgotten common sense, or you just forgot any logic left in you? Have you become like to idol worshiper of Psalm 115? If the world was made out only of people like you, we would have never realize that the earth is round and they would have said that the electricity is from the devil!

        • KAVI says:

          Jim: “Your constant denigration of the Jewish people does not help your case.”

          Kavi: Out of curiousity, when I repeat the words of G-d in Tanakh, how is that “denigration”?

          G-d calls Israel “whores” by the word of Ezekiel– no doubt you would accuse Ezekiel and condemn him as an anti-semite!

          ____________________

          Jim: “Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Jewish people are blind and unable to understand Tanach whatsoever, as you assert. […] Because the Jew does not understand a passage does not mean that you do. You will still have not demonstrated the truth of your position. You have made a logical error.”

          Kavi: I have not made a “logical error” because only YOU created that line of argument… I did not.

          …do you not realize you eggregiously created another classic textbook example of a “straw man” argument?

          If you “blindly” fail to realize it… well, so be it.

          ____________________

          Jim: “You have assumed only two interpretations exist, the Jewish one and yours.”

          Kavi: Well of all amazing things… another classic textbook example of a “straw man” argument!!

          Jim, let Will Rogers give you a bit of advice,

          “When you find yourself in a hole… stop digging!”

          ____________________

          BTW> Your “clear” example of Isaiah 7 is not even close to being as clear as you presume… all you have is an “interpretative argument”… not a “proof”

          If one desires simpleton answers to Isaiah 7 and other Messianic texts, then stick with Orthodox Judaism…

          However, if one desires to educate themselves, find the most persuasive argument contrary to your own and see if your interpretation withstands the heat…

          …I can assure you that I am not sweating.
          ____________________

          • RT says:

            Kavi, do you know what a “straw man argument is”?

            A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

            By saying that Jim made a straw man argument by saying you have not proposed any prove for your frivolous theories and interpretation does not make it a straw man argument. Remember that the Jewish interpretation is NOT in play her (as Jim mentioned). It is your interpretation that Jesus is the fulfillment of all those amazing prophecies that are at play. Jewish interpretations can still be wrong. By saying that Jim has another classic “straw man argument”, you first LIED, and on top of that you YOURSELF throw a straw man argument.

            Could you please stop diverting the subject. I asked you several times to check any prophecies in the Tanakh. And that dated back since 2015. You argued with many people over the years, but not once you stopped and look at any passages. You always arrive with your own conclusion and don’t even care to look at passages in context. You arrive with your acclamations that Yeshua is the messiah and that we are blinded, but who acts like the fool who is blinded and unwilling to listen to the other? You are Kavi!

          • Jim says:

            Kavi,

            I begin to think you are here to amuse us, and if so, I must say: “Bravo!”

            Is anything funnier than you arguing that you are not creating a false dichotomy between the Jewish position and yours and then you going on to declare the Jewish position on Isaiah 7 to the “the simpleton answer” of “Orthodox Judaism” while never substantiating yours? Surely, you wrote this post only to give us all a good bout of laughter with which to start our day. Quite wonderful, really. Even now, I can barely stifle the aftershock giggles that follow an unconstrained moment of hilarity. Good show!

            Jim

          • RT says:

            Kavi, please educate me on the real meaning of Isaiah 7. Surely you can show us light on why this text talks about Jesus.:

            13.And he said, “Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? יג.וַיֹּ֕אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֖א בֵּ֣ית דָּוִ֑ד הַמְעַ֚ט מִכֶּם֙ הַלְא֣וֹת אֲנָשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י תַלְא֖וּ גַּ֥ם אֶת־אֱלֹהָֽי:

            14.Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. יד.לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָֽעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל:

            15.Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. טו.חֶמְאָ֥ה וּדְבַ֖שׁ יֹאכֵ֑ל לְדַעְתּ֛וֹ מָא֥וֹס בָּרָ֖ע וּבָח֥וֹר בַּטּֽוֹב:

            16.For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.” טז.כִּ֠י בְּטֶ֨רֶם יֵדַ֥ע הַנַּ֛עַר מָא֥וֹס בָּרָ֖ע וּבָח֣וֹר בַּטּ֑וֹב תֵּֽעָזֵ֚ב הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אַתָּ֣ה קָ֔ץ מִפְּנֵ֖י שְׁנֵ֥י מְלָכֶֽיהָ:

            17.The Lord shall bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house, days which have not come, since the day that Ephraim turned away from Judah, namely, the king of Assyria. יז.יָבִ֨יא יְהֹוָ֜ה עָלֶ֗יךָ וְעַֽל־עַמְּךָ֘ וְעַל־בֵּ֣ית אָבִיךָ֒ יָמִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹֽא־בָ֔אוּ לְמִיּ֥וֹם סוּר־אֶפְרַ֖יִם מֵעַ֣ל יְהוּדָ֑ה אֵ֖ת מֶ֥לֶךְ אַשּֽׁוּר:

            18.And it shall be on that day, that the Lord shall whistle to the “fly” that is at the edge of the canals of Egypt, and to the “bee” that is in the land of Assyria.

          • RT says:

            Just to help Kavi, those are Christians commentaries on Isaiah 7:14:

            Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
            It would appear, therefore, that the idea of a miraculous conception was not present to Isaiah’s mind at this time, since a prediction of such astounding import must surely have been clothed in unambiguous language.

            Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
            Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son . . .—Better, behold, the young woman, or perhaps the bride, shall conceive.

            Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
            Before this child, so it may be read; this child which I have now in my arms, (Shear-jashub, the prophet’s own son, ver. 3,) shall be three or four years older, these enemies’ forces shall be forsaken of both their kings.

            Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
            within the time when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should grow old enough to distinguish between good and evils – the calamity which Ahaz feared would be entirely removed.

            Shall give you – Primarily to the house of David; the king and royal family of Judah. It was especially designed to assure the government that the kingdom would be safe.

            A sign – The word does not, of necessity, denote a miracle

            A virgin – This word properly means a girl, maiden, virgin, a young woman who is unmarried, and who is of marriageable age. The word עלמה ‛almâh, is derived from the verb עלם ‛âlam, “to conceal, to hide, to cover.” The word עלם ‛elem, from the same verb, is applied to a “young man,”

            And shall call his name – It was usual for “mothers” to give names to their children; Genesis 4:1; Genesis 19:37; Genesis 29:32; Genesis 30:18. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose, as many of the older interpreters did, that the fact that it is said the mother should give the name, was a proof that the child should have no human father. Such arguments are unworthy of notice; and only show to what means people have resorted in defending the doctrines, and in interpreting the pages of the Bible.

            Immanuel – Hebrew ‘God with us’ – The name is designed to denote that God would be with the nation as its protector.

            It may be quite true, that no argument can be founded on the bare name, Immanuel

            Matthew Poole’s Commentary
            A sign, to wit, of your deliverance.

          • RT says:

            I guess Kavi will dodge my comment because he has no sustainable reason to believe Isaiah 7 talks about Jesus. Instead of acknowledging that, he will just ignore the comment and will soon find another excuse to preach on us and blast the Jewish people…

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “I guess Kavi will dodge my comment because he has no sustainable reason to believe Isaiah 7 talks about Jesus.”

            Kavi: Since you followed my postings on the Daily Minyan years ago, you know I already began commenting on Isaiah 7 and no one was able to (or wanted to) reasonably respond.

            ___________________

            For example, here is just a brief snippet from that site regarding the word “almah”,

            Jim D.“…I invite you [Kavi] to go back and read the story of the defiling of Dinah. The Torah refers to her as “almah” after she was raped and no longer a virgin. Your astounding display of self-confidence is unsupported — in this case and in many others.”

            Kavi: …my response?

            “Jim,
            You are mistaken regarding the word Almah:
            — Only the Greek Septuagint records Dinah as a virgin after being raped, not the Hebrew text [ הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ ].”

            ___________________

            So RT, you’ve thrown down the gauntlet– which I do not mind picking it up, but you [and potentially Jim] will need to answer some very tough questions…

            … and, being late in the day, we will need to take a pass on further discussion for the time being re-visit the issue after Shabbos.

            ___________________

          • RT says:

            You are still elusive Kavi and won’t explain why Isaiah 7 talks about Jesus. For the sake of the argument, you may use “almah” as virgin. Explain me now in context why it fits only Jesus and why anybody in the time of Ahab would have understood this as a messianic prophecy of a virgin birth!

  11. Jim says:

    Kavi,

    A second answer to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/1000-verses/

    You wrote that Jesus did not come to prove anything to humanity. Indeed, you seem to suggest that he was under no responsibility to do so. This notion of yours violates both reason and Torah. In answer to this idea, I will divide my response into two comments. This, the first, will address the violation of reason. The second will address the violation of Torah.

    Even though you imply that Jesus need offer no proof to substantiate his claims, clearly you do not actually believe this. In reality you know what everyone knows, that any prophet, guru, or self-proclaimed messiah has a responsibility to offer proof of his claims. If he does not, one is not obligated to believe him. It is unreasonable to demand belief without the presentation of evidence. And you apply this standard to prophets other than Jesus.

    Indeed, you would apply this standard to Jesus, in all likelihood, if Christian doctrine were just a little different. Imagine that Christian doctrine ran thus: Jesus rose from the dead, and those that believe in his resurrection will be raised from the dead at the end of the world into perfect bodies and live with him in eternal bliss. And to prove one’s faith in the resurrection, one need merely drink a poison that kills one over the course of three days, three very painful days. Somehow, I think you will demand proof before you take this rather extreme measure. Then, you will very likely ask: “How do I know that Jesus came back from the dead? How do I know that those who believe in his resurrection will come back from the dead?”

    I could be wrong, of course. Perhaps you would gladly drink the poison. I have little doubt that some people would. But would you really urge people to lay aside their minds and drink poison based on a promise with no evidence? Would you urge your mother or child to do so? Perhaps you would give them a version of Pascal’s Wager, three days of terrible pain against the hope of eternal bliss—risk it! Or will you perhaps accept the role of the skeptic?

    Let us change the name of the prophet. Now, his name is Joseph Smith. Does that change anything? If it were Jesus, you would put all your faith in him without evidence. If it were Joseph Smith you would not.

    One of the problems with your argument that Jesus did not have to prove himself is that it denies any way to measure competing claims. Imagine two men, Paul and Peter, each claiming to be a prophet from God. Each says that you must sell all your goods and give the proceeds to him. They each claim the other to be a false prophet. Each claims also that he need give you no proof; nor did he come to offer any. You have no means of establishing the credibility of either. The only reasonable thing to do is to follow neither man. You can recognize that one of them may have heard from God, but, because you have no means of determining who that is, you have insufficient reason to follow either. If you follow one and not the other, your decision will be wholly arbitrary.

    But this is precisely what you have done. You do not follow Buddha. You do not follow Joseph Smith. You do not follow Muhammad. Yet, if their claims are challenged, any one of them and all of them can just say that they are not obligated to bring any proof. Since you have already accepted this standard, you have no reason to reject one of them and accept Jesus. Your decision is arbitrary and, in fact, meaningless. It violates reason.

    Nor will you be able to appeal to the testimony of Tanach. You implied that there is no proof that the Torah is true, and that the Torah does not even attempt to authenticate itself. Therefore, your belief in the Torah over the Bhagavad Gita or the Book of Mormon or the Quran is also arbitrary. Your adherence to any particular religious system might as well have been made by throwing dice.

    Moreover, some of those other prophets argued that they were substantiated by the testimony of Tanach, just as Jesus is supposed to have done. And they use the very same method for finding their teachers and doctrines in the Torah that you do. They ignore the plain meaning of a passage and put in their own meaning. They take passages out of context. And you cannot object, because this is the same way you find Jesus in Tanach, both Jesus and Christian doctrine. You will say that you are practicing Midrash. So, the Mormon will say that same. Terminology aside, the practice is exactly alike. Neither of you has a better claim than the other. And you have no means of choosing one over the other. Your decision is not reasoned and not reasonable. It is entirely arbitrary. If you grant that Tanach testifies to Jesus, you have no reason to say that it does not testify to Muhammad.

    Your conclusion that “mankind can believe… or not” is true as far as that goes. But the way you wish them to believe is by flipping a coin. You do not want them to look for truth. You deny them the means to examine it. You urge them to believe despite a lack of proof. Sure, they can believe mindlessly the way you would like them to do. However, this is a denial of reason. And they might as well believe in any other prophet. He has as much claim to them as Jesus, at least, according to your argument.

    Jim

  12. Jim says:

    Kavi,

    A third answer to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/1000-verses/

    I would like to continue to examine your claim that Jesus did not come to prove anything, and the implication in your writing that he had no responsibility to offer proof of his claims. In my previous comment, I wrote that this notion of yours violates reason. But, of course, it also violates the Torah. Indeed, you have attempted to void certain Torah laws.

    To put forth your argument, you appeal to the beginning of Torah, which begins with creation. You write: “…G-d did not bother to ‘prove’ Himself…”. Unfortunately, you do not explain well what you mean, so I shall have to make inference. (And I should point out, much of what you write is unclear, as Larry mentioned.) It appears to me that you mean that the Torah does not begin by giving its credentials. One either accepts it or not, without any proof. And, you seem to imply, that if God did not feel it necessary to prove that this Torah was authentic, then neither should Jesus have to do so.

    This argument, to be blunt, is incompetent.

    You treat the Torah as if it were found in a library somewhere, that no one knew the origin of it. It is as if someone opened the pages and found this account of God and just had to decide for himself whether or not he believed this to be an accurate account of the creation of the Jewish people. But, of course, this was not the case. The Jewish people received the Torah from Moses, Moses whose role as prophet had been verified before the entire nation in a mass prophecy. In Exodus 19:9 we read: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and so trust you ever after.” The event at Sinai is exactly the proof that the Jewish people, those to whom the Torah was given, was a reliable document. Though the book was not given to them at that time, they received it from the only publicly verified prophet. So, indeed, God did give proof that the Torah was true. The Torah does not take pains to authenticate itself at the beginning, because its authentication comes from the Jewish people.

    Moreover, it is incompetent to argue that Jesus did not need to offer any proof of himself, as this is a violation of Torah. Deut. 13 and 18 both discuss the means and necessity of testing a prophet. It is a prophet’s duty to, in fact, substantiate his claims. The Torah does not permit him to demand belief without evidence. If you say that Jesus does not need to prove himself, then you nullify the Torah. It is impermissible for you to establish your own standard for the acceptance of a prophet.

    When I write that your arguments are incompetent, I do not mean that as an unkindness. Indeed, I feel that this is kinder than what is more likely true. I find it more likely true that you are being intentionally deceptive. You have been posting here and other places for a long time, and you are almost assuredly not ignorant of a prophet’s responsibility to prove himself. It seems quite likely that you already know that the Torah prescribes how to test a prophet and that the Torah does not demand blind obedience to all who say, “Thus saith the Lord.” And yet, you put forth this argument, as if to deceive Storm.

    I would not like to think that you are so shamelessly deceptive. I certainly cannot know that you are. But if you are not, then you are most assuredly far too ignorant to instruct others in the way of Torah. Your arguments are so mind-bogglingly incompetent, that I can hardly believe you would put them forward. If this is intended deception on your part, you certainly owe Storm an apology. Moreover, you owe HaShem an apology for your constant abuse of His words, substituting His Torah with your own empty notions.

    Jim

    • KAVI says:

      Jim: “It appears to me that you mean that the Torah does not begin by giving its credentials. One either accepts it or not, without any proof. ”

      Kavi: Patently false… I wrote the following on September 7, 2017 at 3:00 am.

      “BTW> Again, I will repeat what we all know– i.e., Tanakh is a Testimony… not an indisputable “proof” to the vast majority of mankind.

      “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1]

      …although G-d did not bother to “prove” Himself… yet, G-d’s Words and Deeds can be powerful testimonial evidence.

      … but neither G-d’s Words or Deeds can in any way provide indisputable “proofs” to the skeptic.”

      Did you not read my witness that Tanakh forms powerful testimonial evidence.?

      …of course you did not read– you’re still trying to “save” your dead essay.

      ___________________________

      Jim: And, you seem to imply, that if God did not feel it necessary to prove that this Torah was authentic, then neither should Jesus have to do so. This argument, to be blunt, is incompetent.”

      Kavi: I have already written about the Tanakh’s powerful evidential testimony of G-d… hence, you are putting words into my mouth and creating another “straw man” argument…

      Notes:
      …To those who have been following this conversation, does Jim have anything to present other than “straw man” arguments?

      …If any of the readership is a Professor who teaches a course in logic, could someone have mercy on Jim and privately give him a few lessons?

      …Better yet, could such a Professor copy this material and hand it out to the class so that they may gain insight?

      …and if there is not a Professor, perhaps there is a “doctoral candidate”?

      ___________________________

  13. Jim says:

    Kavi,

    A fourth answer to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/1000-verses/

    One of the disorders of the age is facilitated by the improper employment of the names of fallacies. The purpose of knowing the types of fallacies is to help analyze the truth or falsity of arguments. Unfortunately, people do not employ them this way. Rather, the modern man, looking always to uphold his current opinion, uses them to dismiss the arguments of others. He learns the names of fallacies, so that he need not analyze an argument—indeed, so that he need not even face the argument. So, one now reads constantly on the internet Latin terms clearly not understood by the writer, and about straw men, and hordes of true Scotmen. Usually these are just tools to circumvent an argument, which is what you have done in identifying a straw man premise in my essay. Your own employment of the term is clearly just to dismiss the rest of my “lengthy writing”—and by “lengthy” you mean, a few pages—without due consideration. You attempt to dismiss the/a premise in order to ignore the rest of the paper. But clearly, I have not presented a straw man, and your use of the term suggests you do not even know what one is.

    A straw man argument is one put into the mouth of an opponent, because it is easily knocked down. It is either a false argument or an argument made exceedingly simplistic to make the opponent’s position appear weaker. But I have not presented such an argument. Indeed, Christians do claim that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.

    One argument that I have seen is that the nature of the resurrection is different than any other kind of miracle. This proves that Jesus is not just like any other kind of prophet. Even those that could bring someone back from the dead, they argue, could not do it while dead themselves. This miracle is of an entirely different nature and proves that Jesus was something more than other prophets, according to these Christians.

    For Josh McDowell, the resurrection is a proof that Jesus is divine. The ninth chapter of his “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” is titled: “Support of Deity: The Resurrection—Hoax or History?” The title itself tells you that McDowell believes the resurrection proves that Jesus is God. The introduction to the chapter gives three credentials for Jesus, the third of which is the resurrection. Of the resurrection, he writes: “The resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christianity stand or fall together.” In that same chapter, the quotes William Lane Craig: “Even had [the disciples] continued to remember Jesus as their beloved teacher, his crucifixion would have forever silenced any hopes of his being the Messiah.” That is to say, according to Craig, it is the resurrection that proves that Jesus is the Messiah.

    Campus Crusaders for Christ similarly finds proof of Jesus’ claims in his resurrection: “The validity of Jesus’ claims about Himself rests on the Resurrection — whether He rose from the dead or stayed in the grave.” Also: “The Resurrection confirms that Jesus is who He claimed to be.” Here they give four reasons why this proves Jesus was “who He claimed to be”. First, it showed him to be divine. Second, it showed him to be able to forgive sin. Third, it showed that he had power over death. And finally, it showed that he had defeated God’s enemy. (Quotes can be found here: https://www.cru.org/how-to-know-god/did-jesus-christ-really-rise-from-the-dead.html .)

    Now, Kavi, please let us recall my quote, which you considered a straw man argument: “The Christian claim is that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.” When one compares these sources to what I wrote, it certainly does not appear that I have invented an argument for the Christian world. Of course, I can pull up other quotes, but it is hardly necessary. Not only would that become tedious as part of a comment on a blog, but most assuredly, even before I began, nearly everyone who read what you wrote knew that it was hopelessly incorrect.

    If you did demand further evidence that Christians claim that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ Messiahship, I would turn to the NT. You like to employ Paul quite a bit without making direct reference to him. Perhaps you are familiar with Romans 1. In verse 4, Paul writes that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God with power… by resurrection of the dead.” Paul is saying that the resurrection is what shows Jesus to be the Son of God.

    And though you have argued that Jesus did not come to give any proof, he did, in fact, offer the resurrection as a sign to substantiate his claims. In Matthew 12, when some scribes and Pharisees ask for a sign, he offers them the sign of Jonah, declaring that he would be dead and buried for three days (vv. 38-42). So, when Jesus was asked to substantiate his claims, the proof he offered was the resurrection.

    It is obvious, then, that I did not erect a straw man. Christians do indeed claim that the resurrection is proof that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus even appealed to this standard himself.

    And yet, I suppose that I can see one way in which you might consider it a straw man. A straw man is, of course, called such, because it is an argument easily defeated, easily knocked down. And you, yourself, have admitted that the resurrection proves nothing. It is an incredibly weak argument. From the NT, one can see that no evidence of the resurrection was presented. For all the bluster from some apologists that resurrection is the best attested event in history, it is actually an incredibly weak claim. Jesus did not show himself to those scribes and Pharisees. The resurrection was not announced until 47 days after the predicted timeframe, and at that time no Jesus was to be found. The story lacks all credibility.

    It is like a straw man, easily knocked down, but I did not erect it. Its first appearance is in the NT. Modern Christian apologists still argue that the resurrection proves true Jesus’ claim of Messiahship. These are not words I put into the mouth of the Church in order to knock down their empty position. This straw man was erected by the Church in the hopes that it would have the strength to stand. But it does not.

    Jim

    • KAVI says:

      Jim: “A straw man argument is one put into the mouth of an opponent, because it is easily knocked down. It is either a false argument or an argument made exceedingly simplistic to make the opponent’s position appear weaker. But I have not presented such an argument. Indeed, Christians do claim that the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship.”

      Kavi: Okay… are you now committing (or about to commit) another logic error known as “Fallacy of Composition”

      For although there are christians who find the evidence so overwhelming that, to them, such evidence constitutes “proof”… there are just as many who find the “evidence” strong enough to constitute a reasonable Faith in through L-RD Yeshua despite the fact that such strong evidence would not technically be considered “proof”.

      …again, do you intend to add “fallacy of composition” to your exponentially growing list of “straw man” arguments?

      ___________________________

      Jim: “Perhaps you are familiar with Romans 1. In verse 4, Paul writes that Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God with power… by resurrection of the dead.” Paul is saying that the resurrection is what shows Jesus to be the Son of God.”

      Kavi: “Declared?”

      G-d “declared” many things in Tanakh that would not be considered “proofs”… everyone is free to attribute matters to a Living G-d or form a counter argument… people do so all the time.

      As such, Paul makes no “proof” statement here at all.

      ___________________________

      BTW> Your essay represents a corpse which cannot be resuscitated despite all your emergency room efforts.

      If you had written,
      “Some” Christians claim the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship,”

      OR,

      “A number of” Christians claim the resurrection is proof of Jesus’ messiahship”

      …then at least you would be more accurate.

      As it is, this essay is DOA and now infected with MANY of your “straw man” arguments instead of just one…

      ___________________________

  14. KAVI says:

    RT: “Kavi, please educate me on the real meaning of Isaiah 7. Surely you can show us light on why this text talks about Jesus.”

    Kavi: Isaiah was frequently blessed to testify of the Messiah [Chapters Isaiah 7, 9, 11, 49, 53, 65, etc]

    As to shedding some light on the Messianic texts, Isaiah already did and the vast majority of Israel has not accepted G-d’s words… which thus fulfills the prophecy,

    And I heard the voice of the L-rd saying,
    “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?”

    Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
    And He said, “Go, and say to this people:

    “Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
    keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’

    Make the heart of this people dull,
    and their ears heavy,
    and blind their eyes;

    Lest they see with their eyes,
    and hear with their ears,
    and understand with their hearts,
    and turn and be healed.”
    [Isaiah 6]

    Yet despite the seemingly fruitless mission, Isaiah still spoke G-d’s Word to the blind servant Israel even though he knew only the true servant Israel [the Remnant] would respond.

    And since G-d Himself has closed blind Israel’s eyes, ears, and hearts to the truth of redemption in the Messiah L-RD Yeshua… nothing I can do will open what G-d has shut.

    Only G-d Himself enlightens mankind… that is true for the Jewish Remnant just as much as for the Gentiles.

    So, with that understanding, I will continue on at a later time…

    __________________________

    BTW>
    Jim: “Ruling one [interpretation] out does not establish your interpretation as true.”

    Kavi: Jim is absolutely correct on this point…

    And as to interpretations found in commentaries– they can be helpful as well as not… which is why Rabbi Blumenthal and Dr. Brown agree that everyone should study Tanakh for themselves.

    __________________________

    • KAVI What do you say to a former Christian who studied Tanach for himself and studied his way right out of Christianity. He tells people that the most powerful counter-missionary book ever published is the Tanach. What would you say in response to this statement? By the way, this is a person who had literally put his life on the line for Jesus.

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Rabbi B, just playing Devil’s advocate here, but couldn’t anyone study their way out of various ideas/doctrines using just Tanakh?

        For example, ressurection does not seem clear using just Tanakh unless you already accept a traditional interpretation that says “the dead in the earth awaking is literal life from death, and not merely a metaphor for national reconstitution alone.”

        Or, as you say Jews as the target audience of Torah.

        What if someone makes the argument that the Torah is speaking to the righteous of all nations and not just 1 identifiable people group as scripture bears out that “Israel” properly so called, was always a reconstituting body of the faithful born Jews, but converts too. IE the message of Abraham has always been universal not showing favorites based on genes?

        As an example, both Moses and Korah were priests, and Moses had a midianite wife (which itself would be legally problrlematic) and yet if we were to ask “who counts as Israel in this example?” Would it not be Moses and his Midianite wife, and not Korah?

        Ie just because Korah was a priest and observant, it doesn’t mean he was faithful Israel?

        Or consider that scripture shows that the majority of the generation of Sinai did not live to enter the promised land, which is why Joshua had to circumcise Israelites again at Gilgal. The descendants appear to have needed a refresher on their obligations.

        • Concerned Reader I was telling KAVI to be consistent – I never said that Tanach by itself supports every Jewish belief About the target audience – study Tanach – it is clear enough on the subject As for the generation of the wilderness – the people who entered the land were OK – but they didn’t circumcise their kids either – the language of teh text in Joshua gives us to understand that the reason they didn’t circumcise was because of the wilderness conditions – not because they were rebelling against God 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Concerned Reader says:

            In reference to rebelliousness, I was reffering to the generation that died in the wilderness and Korah’s rebellion, not the uncircumcised who were recommited to Torah at Gilgal.

          • Concerned Reader My point was that teh generation who entered the land was loyal and they too did not circumcise their children in the desert – the generation that entered the land included anyone who was not 20 years old at the time of the incident with the spies. They could have been 59 when entering the land – marrying and bearing children in the desert. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • KAVI says:

        R’B: “KAVI What do you say to a former Christian who studied Tanach for himself and studied his way right out of Christianity. He tells people that the most powerful counter-missionary book ever published is the Tanach. What would you say in response to this statement?”

        Kavi: Since that person is settled on redemption through self-righteousness, Orthodox theology is certainly one alternative of many…

        However, about 2,000 years ago, Tanakh didn’t dissuade a small remnant of Jewish faithful in G-d’s promised Messiah Redeemer from enlightening both Jews and Gentiles to the Truth of G-d’s salvation which presently reaches to the ends of the earth.

        …just as Isaiah foretold [Isaiah 49 & 65]
        …just as L-RD Yeshua foretold [Mark 4]

        ___________________

        • KAVI This is not directly for you – this is for those who are following the conversation. Its the slander that is destroying Kavi’s ability to hear. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

    • RT says:

      That’s your explanation of Isaiah 7? Really? REALLY?

      No, seriously! REALLLY!!!???

      Is that your explanation of Isaiah 7? The JEWS are blind and it was told by Isaiah, so that’s why you won’t see Isaiah 7 as talking about Jesus? You must be kidding me! You cannot come up with a verse by verse understanding of Isaiah 7 showing why Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus, so you come up with your typical excuse of the Jews are blind?

      I will give you a second chance to come up with a proper Exegesis or Critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture.

      • RT says:

        Kavi, still waiting for your exegesis of Isaiah 7! Did the HS mysteriously depart from you? Are you not able to show us that this chapter talks about Jesus and the blessed virgin Mary?

        • Dina says:

          RT, it’s very obvious, you’re just too blind to see it.

        • Jim says:

          RT,

          We do not know but that Kavi may be busy right now. It is difficult to demand an answer immediately from someone when we do not know what other matters occupy him. The best thing we can do, I think, is answer the arguments when they come.

          We can point out that Kavi’s methodology on this page has been to attempt to discredit his opponents rather than present an argument. He has done that with me, misrepresenting my arguments and then dismissing them through the charge of “straw men”. He has done that by calling the Jewish position that of the simpleton. Perhaps most bizarrely, he has done that by pointing out an error from someone on another board that does not post here as far as I know. Instead of presenting his argument, he claims victory over Jim D., though the error Jim D. made does nothing to substantiate Kavi’s argument.

          It is rather strange that he begins his exposition of Isaiah 7 with the claim that the Jews are blind. He seems to consider that the foundation from which to work. And yet, the claim is entirely irrelevant to proving his case.

          These things, I think we can point out. But I do not see how we can demand that he operate according to our timetable.

          Jim

          • RT says:

            Hi Jim, Kavi has been ignoring any interpretation of text and any difficult questions ever since. He prefers to accuse other or preach to other. He says general statement like we are blind and cannot see it, and that gives him an excuse to avoid answering any hard questions. This has been going on forever! You can see that through his answer down. He has not explained why the “miraculous” birth of Isaiah 7 relates to Jesus. He keeps on preaching and avoiding the answer. He also keeps on throwing random verses that fits his Theology in the mix, so he does not need to ever evaluate his belief. Instead of looking at Isaiah 7, he will say something like:
            All sinned (psalm 14, Isa 66)
            we need a redeemer (Isaiah 48)
            We need a sinless person through virigin birth (Isaiah 7).

            Then we get caught on answer his misassumption, and never go back to the original question we asked. This time, I will not stop bugging him until he answer why Isaiah 7 equals Jesus. If he wants to be part of that blog, he has to answer others too!

          • Jim says:

            RT,

            I apologize if I offended. I know that Kavi gets under your skin, and I understand why. Please forgive my offense.

            Jim

          • RT says:

            I was not offended, don’t worry. You said nothing rude 🙂

      • KAVI says:

        Kavi: Proper Exegesis? Critical Explanation?

        Does G-d desire His Salvation to be so complex that only theologians find understanding?

        …No, forgiveness through Messiah Redeemer is graciously accessible to all.

        _____________________________

        So, continuing with what blind Israel is blind to… Isaiah speaks of,

        [] G-d’s existence in unified plurality [Isaiah 6 & 48]
        [] A Divine Messiah’s descent from heaven and birth [Is 7 & 9]
        [] A Divine Messiah’s redemptive mission [Is 42 & 61]
        [] A Divine Messiah’s suffering and execution and resurrection [Is 52 & 53]
        [] A Divine Messiah’s future reign [Is 9 & 11]

        Just looking briefly at a couple testimonies of G-d’s unified plurality…

        [a] “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” [Genesis 1]
        And,
        [b] The L-RD came down and ate a meal of meat and dairy with Abraham [Genesis 18]
        AND
        [c] The L-RD [Yeshua] came down at Mt. Sinai and stood by Moses while the L-RD [Ancient of Days] passed by [Exodus 34]
        And,
        [d] “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for Us?” [Isaiah 6]

        …if one cannot accept these extraordinarily plain Scriptures and other passages which G-d testifies of His existence in unified [Echad] plurality…. will the truth of Isaiah 7 all of a sudden seem coherent?

        _____________________________

        So, Isaiah’s narrative syncs with G-d’s firstpromise of Messiah Redeemer,

        “I will put enmity between you and the woman,
        and between your offspring and her offspring;
        He shall bruise your head,
        and you shall bruise his heel.” [Genesis 3]

        And ever since that time until the day of L-RD Yeshua, the true faithful [Gentile and Jew] anticipated the day when the Divine Messiah Redeemer would be birthed.

        … and what of those living specifically in Isaiah’s time? The L-RD G-d speaks His Word of hope to the True Servants and Witnesses of Israel who are likewise anticipating the day of Divine Messiah Redeemer.
        ___________________________

        BTW> …next time, I hope to move on to Isaiah 7 directly.

        ___________________________

        • RT says:

          Does G-d desire His Salvation to be so complex that only theologians find understanding?

          You are avoiding the question Kavi! The text of Isaiah 7 is clear, and clearly Jesus is not there! You know it and won’t admit it! Matthew made a blunder by claiming that it was about Jesus. I am not looking at Genesis 3, or other irrelevant text, I am looking at Isaiah 7. Clearly a new theme starts at Isaiah 7 until Isaiah 9. If you read it in context, you would see that Israel and Syria are about to attack Ahaz. This menace for those two kingdom will be felt until Ezekiah is born. Now Isaiah went to talk to Ahaz in relation to that threat!. What on earth a virgin birth of a son a few hundreds of year later would be helpful to the house of David? And why did those two kingdom would stop being a treat before the child is old if it refers to Jesus?

          • KAVI says:

            Kavi: R. Skobac poorly paints the context of Isaiah 7 as merely a “political crisis” for the Kingdom of Judah.

            Quite a massive understatement… The kingdoms of Israel and Aram planned to murder all those in the House of David.

            …and, if the line of David perished, there would be no Messianic descendant according to what G-d had promised to David.

            ________________________

            Therefore, the panoramic context of Isaiah 7 is the threat to the Messianic Hope that first began in Genesis 3.

            And so, in Isaiah 7, G-d provides continuing assurance to the faithful remnant that “The Seed” Messiah would indeed be born into the world as a child despite any and all threats.

            _____________________________

            BTW> …to be continued
            _____________________________

          • RT says:

            You keep on explaining your theory, but not Isaiah7.

            Where does Isaiah 7 talks about the messiah, and why do you conclude it is about the messiah? You are not putting forth any explanation! Look at the Verses in context and explain me why Isaiah 7 is related to Genesis 3? You are putting forth your argument out of thin air! Of course if Judah is wiped out, then there is no messiah, but I could really said that about any single verse of the bible! I will help you out:

            WHAT IS THE MAIN TEAM OF ISAIAH 7?

            Who is this child?
            Can two children be born from the same prophecy? Why not three? How can you split the two part of the prophecies to fit both Isaiah’s son and Jesus? Wouldn’t that make two incomplete prophecies anyway?

            Why would Isaiah be considered a prophet if Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophecy? If the child was born before the two kingdom was destroyed, then that would have make Isaiah a false prophet Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophecy…

            Why would Jesus be a reassurance for Ahaz concerning the present conflict that they are facing?

            In context, do you have any more reason to believe it was Jesus, more that Matthew said so?

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “Can two children be born from the same prophecy?”

            Kavi: G-d gave two “signs”… one future and one present.

            As to the first, R. Skobac practically portrays G-d’s future miraculous sign as piffle.

            Yet, to the contrary, the wonderous sign was to be at least as powerful as those of the plagues on Egypt…

            …a sign as deep as sheol or as high as heaven. [Isaiah 7:11]

            ________________________

            G-d already knew that wicked Ahaz would reject Him and His word,

            Therefore,

            … G-d Himself gave a future supernatural sign to the whole House of David.

            And,

            … G-d also gave a current natural sign to the whole House of David.

            ________________________

            Two “signs”…
            [a] one powerfully miraculous future sign that spoke of Messiah Redeemer,

            “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.” [Isaiah 7:14-15]

            and

            [b] one immediately tangible sign that spoke of Ephraim’s and Aram’s near-term destruction,

            “However, before this boy [Shear-Jashub] knows enough to reject what is wrong and choose what is right, the land whose two kings you dread will be devastated.” [Isaiah 7:16]

            _______________________

            BTW> G-d demanded that Isaiah bring his toddler, perhaps even baby, son Shear-Jashub for a reason,
            “Then the L-RD said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-Jashub…” [Isaiah 7:3]

            “Behold, I and the children whom the L-RD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the L-RD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” [Isaiah 8:18]
            _______________________

          • RT says:

            Kavi: G-d gave two “signs”… one future and one present.

            NO! NO, and NO! It does not work like that. Or the prophecy is 100% completed, or Isaiah was a false prophet!

            By the way, any reason to believe there was 2 signs on that prophecy? You hang on one word, one wrongly translated word to fit your theory! The truth is, you take a word and take it 100% out of context, you use that word that is wrongly translated (and hang on it like HELL) and you just forget about anything else. This is NOT how you should interpret the Bible! You can arrive with any theory by doing that. Your friends the Mormons like doing that too!

            I have one question to ask you: Why should I add the virgin Mary in Isaiah 7, when actually 100% of that prophecy fits Isaiah’s son? Even if it would be “Virgin” on the passage (which is not by the way), still Isaiah wife could have gotten pregnant after Isaiah spoke with Ahaz. The Virgin (Ahaz knew who it was because of the “HaAlmah”). The Virgin, that you are looking right now, she is going to have a boy (she is going to be pregnant and have a son (not a girl) and you know what, she will decide herself to name him Emanuel. 100% of humanity are virgins until they are not! And when that specific son (name Emanuel, not Jesus) is about 4, the 2 kingdom who want to arm you not be a threat anymore! No need for Jesus. And if 2 prophecies, when not three, or four? Why would I need to add to it, when actually it is a 100% completed prophecy?

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “NO! NO, and NO! It does not work like that. Or the prophecy is 100% completed, or Isaiah was a false prophet!”

            Kavi: On the contrary, there is nothing I wrote that R.Skobac can “disprove”…

            _______________________________

            …R.Skobac knows that the Biblical Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 is obscure, so he chooses an interpretation that suits his purposes.

            Fine enough… Yet R.Skobac’s interpretation is just one of a number of competing arguments– with each having its own counter-arguments against one another.

            And if you are as pleased as a pea in a pod in living with R.Skobac’s words– then so be it…

            …but just be warned that R.Skobac’s interpretation keeps you blind and in the dark… just like he is blind and in the dark [Isaiah 6 & 28]

            _______________________________

            BTW> R.Skobac is guilty of straining at gnats and swallowing camels when he ignores and downplays the weighty matters which he cannot possibly reconcile… to name a few examples,

            [] Context [Isaiah 6 – G-d’s existence in unified plurality + Israel’s blindness ]
            [] Context [Isaiah 7 – Threat to Messiah’s lineage]
            [] Requirement of a miraculous Sign […as deep as sheol and high as heaven]
            [] G-d’s demand to bring Shear-Jashub [the second sign – Isaiah 7:16 & 8:18]
            [] Isaiah’s words directed to the Whole House of David [VS words to Ahaz]
            [] Obscure Hebrew grammar [which actually cannot prove or disprove any interpretation]
            [] Judgment on Ahaz [Assyria]

            As such, you have been given the best interpretation which takes all these matters into account– an interpretation that syncs with Isaiah’s other writings as well as the writings of Moses and the Prophets…

            _______________________________

          • KAVI talking about straining at gnats and swallowing camels – your list of “issues” are gnats compared to the plain meaning of the text – in Biblical interpretation the gnats have to align with the camels – or else words have no meaning 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • RT says:

            If Isaiah meant Virgin and the girl was not a virgin Isaiah should have died! He would have been a false prophet, his words were not obscure for Ahaz, not anybody else present! In other case, the Girl was really a virgin, and you cannot bear the fact of have two Virgin births. You have no argument to sustain your “Virgin Birth” theory!

            It is really useless to talk with you Kavi. Even Christians agree that Matthew’s interpretation of the verse was iffy! Be right in your own eye my friend, and stop making us waste our time!

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “The Virgin (Ahaz knew who it was because of the “HaAlmah”)”

            Kavi: R.Skobac created this “false dilemma” by making the unsubstantiated claim that “HaAlmah” is someone alive at that time and known to Ahaz– he then forces an “either/or” conclusion which does not exist.

            In reality, R.Skobac can neither “prove” the assertion grammatically nor “prove” it contextually.

            So, some items to consider…
            [1] Isaiah does not directly address Ahaz, but speaks to the “House of David…” [Isaiah 7:13]

            [2] Isaiah uses the plural “you” in “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign…” [Isaiah 7:14]
            ___________________________________

            But because there does exist obscure Hebrew grammar and indistinct concepts within Isaiah 7, R.Skobac, other Rabbis, Messianics, Muslims, secular scholars, etc can assert and defend any number of interpretations.

            …and no interpretation is worth its salt unless it addresses the obvious,

            [] Context: [Isaiah 6 – G-d’s existence in unified plurality + Israel’s blindness ]
            [] Context: [Isaiah 7 – Threat to Messiah’s Davidic lineage]
            [] Context: G-d’s demand to bring Shear-Jashub [the “immediate” sign – Isaiah 7:16 & 8:18]
            [] Context: G-d’s judgment against Ahaz [Assyria]

            AND

            [] And Context:

            G-d’s wonderous sign MUST be at least as powerful as those of the plagues on Egypt…

            …a sign as deep as sheol or as high as heaven. [Isaiah 7:11]

            ___________________________________

          • KAVI Do you have any idea what it is that sets the miracles from Egypt apart from other miracles? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • RT says:

            How many words are in Isaiah 7? And you are stock with one word and totally ignore the context of the text. Tell me Kavi, if you would have read Isaiah 7 before Jesus was born, would you have guess that it refers to the future birth of the messiah by a virgin mother? I hope that you will think before answering yes! Do you really think it was clearly messianic for Jews before Jesus was born (and Matthew interpreted it that way?). If so, why nobody ripped Isaiah 7 of context before Jesus was born?

          • KAVI says:

            RT: “…And you are stock with one word and totally ignore the context of the text.”

            Kavi: The panoramic context is Messianic…

            [a] Isaiah 6 set the tone for the remainder of G-d’s Messianic teaching– namely, the blind majority will not accept G-d’s Messiah.

            [b] Isaiah 7 finds Aram and Ephraim threatening to destroy the House of David… and therefore annhilate the Davidic Messianic hope promised by G-d.

            As such, G-d provides continuing assurance to the faithful remnant that Messiah, “The Seed” [Genesis 3] would, without fail, descend from heaven to be born into the world as a child regardless of any threat.

            ___________________________

            RT: “Do you really think it was clearly messianic for Jews before Jesus was born.”

            Kavi: To the tiny minority of Righteous Israel– yes, Isaiah’s words were clearly Messianic.

            ___________________________

          • Dina says:

            “To the tiny minority of Righteous Israel– yes, Isaiah’s words were clearly Messianic.”

            Prove it.

        • RT says:

          I guess I did not miss anything important since the two months I was absent… Only less headaches non-sense from Kavi.

  15. Steve says:

    Popular Jewish belief expresses that the killing of the Children of Israel by the Gentiles atones for prior generational sins committed by the Jewish people ~ Zohar, Bemidbar 218a.

    It is reasonable to assume that during the Roman period this idea was applied not only to Yeshua, but also to all those who were executed by the authorities. Even Jews who did not accept Yeshua evidently believed that Jesus, like the other martyrs of the Roman authorities, had atoned for the sins of Israel but the scriptures as a whole resemble the death and resurrection of Yeshua having far greater reach and eternal significance then just that of the atonement of the children of Israel for that generation.

    Although Psalm 49:7-8 reveals that: “No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him – as the ransom for a life is costly and no payment is ever enough.” The Zohar reveals that: When G-d desires to give healing to the world He smites one righteous man (tzaddik) among them with disease and suffering, and through him gives healing to all, as it is written, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities… and by his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

    Yeshua could actually atone for the sins of mankind and make a payment that is “enough” for the following reasons: (1) Yeshua was in a representative position as the Second and last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was of the dust of the earth, the second Adam (Yeshua) was from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:45). (2) Yeshua was sinless according to torah law and according to biblical gamtria even above the Torah as Isaac (a foreshadow of the Messiah) was above the sticks (Torah) at the Akeda/binding. (3) Mary was impregnated by the Ruach Hakodesh not a human sinful descendant of the bloodline of Adam. (4) God’s plan was to completely redeem man, and cleanse him of all sin and not just cover it once yearly with the blood of animal sacrifices within the temple bounds before it’s destruction around 70 C.E. Isaiah 53:6 states: The LORD laid on him (Yeshua) the iniquity of us all.

    Not even the great Jewish rabbi Rashi, would disagree that while the Temple was standing, blood sacrifice was essential. According to the Talmud, “there is no atonement without the blood” (Yoma 5a, Zebahim 6a, Menahot 93b).

    Blood sacrifices were the heart and soul of biblical atonement. Read Leviticus 16 and try to imagine the Day of Atonement without blood sacrifice. The question of what else besides blood could make atonement really didn’t became a critical issue in Judaism until after 70 C.E, when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans.

    Through Yeshua everyone who believes can be set free from both intentional and unintentional sins, a justification that was unattainable under the law of Moses. Old Covenant sacrifices did not cover anything beyond unintentional sins of ignorance which leaves intentional sins unatoned for. The New Testament speaks of Jesus, in Matthew 20:28: “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (as atonement) for many.” In Jesus’ death on the cross, He made the payment that prevented God’s wrath from falling on those who deserved it (namely us).

    The death of the righteous is very powerful. This is a concept that has continued in Judaism to this day, as a way of giving reason to the senseless deaths of “innocent” people like in the Holocaust, that their death (their blood) made atonement for sin of prior generations. And the more righteous the person, like the high priest, the more powerful their death. So, imagine what the death of the Messiah born of the Holy Spirit would bring! That could atone for the sin of the whole world! And that’s exactly what happened when Yeshua ascended back to His Father and made atonement for our sins once and for all. Hebrews 9:11 states: But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle in heaven not made with hands, with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

    1Peter 2:22-24 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

    As a believer in Jesus, you can have the assurance that your sins are forgiven and that you will spend eternity with God. Can Judaism say the same? For all the efforts to maintain and preserve Jewish life, at the end of it the rabbis cannot say even that God will be pleased, let alone whether or not they will receive eternal life. To have that, you need to accept Yeshua’s sacrifice by faith for your sins and then the Holy Spirit will impress on you a sin free conscience before God the Father.

    • LarryB says:

      Steve
      What is Zohar, Bemidbar 218a? Can you paste what your reading?

    • Concerned Reader says:

      Steve, give this a read if you actually came to learn, and not merely to preach. http://judaismsanswer.com/zohar.htm

    • KAVI says:

      Steve,
      Why make reference to the Zohar when Tanakh bears more than enough of G-d’s testimony to both Jews and Gentiles that L-RD Yeshua is His Messiah?

      Isaiah plainly states in Chapter 6 of his writings that Israel is callous of heart, deaf, and blind…

      Isaiah likewise plainly states in Chapter 42 and elsewhere in his writings that the Gentiles are devoid of G-d’s Light and therefore just as blind…

      As such, Isaiah’s words are utter darkness to the mind… minds devoid of understanding.

      Unless G-d graciously grants forgiveness of sins through faith in Him and His Messiah, both Jew and Gentile would hold hands and eternally perish together in mutual blindness.

      ____________________________

      • Brother Kavi, you said, “Isaiah plainly states in Chapter 6 of his writings that Israel is callous of heart, deaf, and blind…” but i want to urge you to read the text as it is! I am saying this because this is the most important and the most frequently- quoted- Tanakh verses in the N.T!! It never said, “Israel IS callous of heart, deaf, and blind.” It said in verse 9 and 10, “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. MAKE the heart of this people fat, and MAKE their ears heavy, and SHUT their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.” Consider the Hiphil form of the verbs and we will see that God has a secret mission through the blindness of His own people! I believe you know that Yeshua fulfilled this mission by teaching the truth by PARABLE. (Mt 13:14, Mk4:12, Lk8:10, Jn12:40, Acts28:26, Romans11:7,8,25, 2 Cor.3:14) (parabolew in Greek literally means “throw alongside” which means “throw known truth alongside unknown or concealed truth).

        Why did he have to teach by parable not by explicit methods? To conceal the truth- the mission of God’s salvation for the world. Since the majority of the Jewish crowds in Yeshua’s time in Israel could not understand (NT says “the truth was concealed to their eyes or they were not allowed to understand”) the truth in the teachings of Yeshua, they regarded him as a heretic or a false prophet, thus delivered him to crucifixion. So, the most important mission of Yeshua was possible by Jewish blindness. In other words, God used both Israel and Yeshua to bring salvation unto the world. I am not talking about conspiracy theory, I am talking about God’s wisdom and providence. Give ear to what Paul has to say;
        1Co 2:7 ” But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him”

        I wish gentile Christians church would repent of their pride over the blindness of Jewish people, and come humbly to the Jews and say, “Thank you and thank you so much. Now i understand what Yeshua has said to a samaritan woman, “salvations is of the JEWS.”

        • RT says:

          Are you sure it does not talk about you Kavi: “callous of heart, deaf, and blind…”? Seriously, it seams redundant to try to show colors to blinds and idiotic to try to explain the beauty of a sunset to a blind who is not interested to know. So why do you all see the needs to annoy people?

  16. Concerned Reader says:

    Kavi, please do not be offended by what im about to say.

    If what you say is true of your deity, he is a psychopath who lies to his creatures.

    G-d told cain that he could master his sin. You claim he lied with what you wrote.

    G-d saved Nineveh when people repented. You claim man cant repent without Jesus.

    G-d said that cursed is the man who trusts in princes, and in the son of man in whom there is no help. You claim a prince of peace is required.

    A G-d who is good and gives a righteus law of justice is not going to blind the majority of his creatures whom he chose to give free will in the 1st place.

    You actually believe you have to acknowledge the flesh and blood Jesus from 2,000 years ago for G-d to accept you?

    Dont you realize that this is the same as saying “you need to be Jewish for G-d to save you?”

    You do realize that if you are not judged by your deeds, but rather by recognizing one man, that Jesus’ entire 3 year ministry is meaningless?

    Christians make the whole cosmos stand or fall on the cross. All of creation hinges on 1 man’s several hours of suffering. Just hours?

    What about all the other Jews who died the same day, right next to Yeshua?

    The fate of, and the sins of, all men for all time, wiped out by Jesus in only 1 weekend if you say “I love Jesus?” No sir. Thats injustice par excellance.

    Kavi, have you ever considered that you have made all of Jesus’ ethics that he taught his students for 3 whole years absolutely itrelevant? Not just irrelevant but of no effect in real life?

    All those good things Yeshua taught about how we should treat others go by the wayside because of the Christian obsession with Jesus’ magic blood and cross.

    If you can do no good, if you are spiritually blind without Jesus’ death, you have made the best aspects of Jesus’ ministry utterly useless.

    Can I ask a question?

    If G-d had killed Jesus as a baby, would that have ended sin the same as if he were crucified as an adult?

    Do you need to live like Jesus (emulate his deeds) to be counted as righteous, or just believe he died for you? If the latter, his commands are without meaning.

    If the former, then acknowledging his death and blood are not primary.

  17. Concerned Reader says:

    A Letter To Gean Guk Gean

    Gean Guk Gean, you are right that a person can read the New Testament books in such a way that those books might suggest that Jesus’ being rejected by the people and leaders was “all part of G-d’s plan,” and so ideally nobody should be seen as at fault or blamed for the fact that Jesus died, if that was supposed to happen. As Jesus said “forgive them father for they know not what they do.”

    I, like yourself used to read the New Testament that way, I thought that was the natural reading. I used to see it that way (I still do think that was the intent of at least some of the authors,) until I realized something.

    Kavi’s response unfortunately, (the belief that all Jews are deaf and blind sinners damned for eternity,) is the historic prevailing Christian understanding of the role and fate of the Jewish people as they exist now in Christian salvation history, regardless of the denomination.
    They are blamed and mocked and ridiculed, and were for centuries killed, for holding on to the pre Christian understanding of the Torah.

    Volumes of literature have been written over the course of centuries where Jews are labeled Christ murderers who are guilty of deicide, and they are guilty until the end of time.
    An entire genre of literature exists in all denominations of Christianity where the Jewish people are routunely vilified in this horrific manner.
    Even if the intent of the NT was to say that Jesus dying was part of G-d’s will and it was nobody’s fault, that is not how the Churches ever read or interpret the New Testament. It never has been read or applied the way you are reading it.
    This whole problem explains why the Christian approach to redemption doesn’t work. It cant produce the results that good Christians would like it to.

    What do I mean by a problem? In Christian theology G-d is said to be love itself. The death of Jesus is seen as the ultimate expression of G-d’s love for humans, Jesus is said to be the word of G-d itself, G-d’s essence dying.
    The problem with this picture might not at 1st be apparent to you, but please focus on what I write below.
    If Jesus dying was indeed G-d’s ultimate expression of love, even the essence of love, you cannot escape the fact that real people will be blamed and dehumanized for causing the death of love itself.
    (I realize that the intent of the New Testament authors is to say that Jesus’ death covers the sins of everyone who kneels to him and follows sincerely, and that this is love,) but this has the very real side effect that anyone who has a question, a reservation, or a doubt about Jesus’ claims or qualifications, becomes complicit in the death of love itself. And Christians manifest real hatred of such people, even when the book tells them not to.
    Let that sink in.
    The Church blithely asks Christians to “love your enemy,” IE to love the ones who the New Testament says were complicit in Christ’s death. It doesn’t tell you as a believer in Jesus how to be effectively caring or loving to an enemy well enough or clear enough, it just demands that you do it.
    The Christian narrative demands something that is next to impossible for humans to actually live out, especially when it directly conflicts with a person’s sense of justice or fairness.
    We see this all the time when a Christian asks “what if Hitler Genuinely said he loves Jesus?” “would G-d forgive his life of evil without justice for his victims?”
    Do you see how repugnant that question is? How can a verbal confession of a name absolve Hitler of killing millions of people who did nothing to deserve death? Its disturbing. It inspires outrage not peace.
    Look at the Orthodox Christian history of persecuting its various percieved heretical groups like Seventh Day Adventists or Mormons.
    When was the last time you saw an Evangelical invite a Mormon in for a cup of Coffee, and a chat in brotherhood and peace?
    It doesn’t happen! Why? Because Christians do not want to love a heretic. They see a heretic as deserving of punishment and wrath. Look at the Church’s treatment of Judas iscariot. Read the commentaries. He’s not regarded as saved.
    The one guy who needs Jesus’ forgiveness the most according to Christianity would be Judas Iscariot, and he does not recieve mercy, even if that was the gospel writer’s intention.
    Read literally any Christian commentary. You will find that either he is consigned to hell by the commentators, or they say “I’m not sure what happens to Judas.”

    The Christian Bible sticks its believers into a situation where they always have to wonder, “is so and so truly saved?” “Is he truly partaking of the holy spirit?” “If I have doubts, but I need to love Christ or go to hell, do I have free will?”

    The truth is that nobody knows, but Humans like you and Kavi, are out to make sure that others believe in Jesus “just to be safe.”
    The worst part is that you cannot avoid a terrible reaction like Kavi’s. You cant escape his description of Jews as horrible sinners.
    The New Testament portrays Judaism’s leaders as serpents, white washed hypocrites who do not know G-d, or love him. Its very hard then to get real humans to love someone truly and sincerely when you paint that awful picture of them.

    • Dina says:

      Con, one of the most frustrating comments I hear from Christians is that real Christians never hated or persecuted Jews. What they don’t get is that throughout most of Christian history, the more you loved Jesus the more likely you were to hate Jews. Extreme piety was always linked with extreme Jew hatred. Christians hated Jews because they loved Jesus.

      How could they not? The passion narrative is presented in such a way as to elicit the strongest possible emotions in its readers, especially horror of the people whose actions supposedly led to Jesus’s crucifixion. How could you love such dastardly people? How could you love liars, murderers, and children of the devil? And indeed, wouldn’t it be wrong to love them?

      One of the most eye opening histories of Christian anti-Semitism is Malcolm Haye’s Thy Brother’s Blood. In this book he recounts the actions of a famous pope greatly praised by the Jews of the time period for intervening in the Crusades and preventing a lot of bloodshed. But this pope (sorry, I forget his name), was no Jew lover. He believed that Jews should be kept in a degraded state, but not killed. He therefore intervened to stop a monk by the name of Ralph (or something like that) who was leading mobs on massacres against Jewish communities. The contrast of his mild words of ordering to stop with his harsh words of condemnation that Ralph should be put to death for the murder of one Christian is astounding. He didn’t use any of that passionate language for the thousands of Jewish deaths at Ralph’s hands.

      The fact is that for much of history Jews were not regarded as fellow men but rather as a subhuman species. And that regard was the result of a fervent love of Jesus.

  18. Concerned Reader says:

    In an amazing twist of irony, one of Dr. Brown’s latest videos is an 11 year old boy calling in and asking Dr. Brown “How can I know if I am really saved?”

    At such a young age this young boy wants to know how he can be sure. Thats so sad, but it doesnt suprise me, cause I’ve been where that child was.

    Dr. Brown essentially just asks the boy if he truly trusts the claim that Jesus died for him, and if the boy trusted and knew that he sinned and needed forgiveness? The boy obediently says “Yes sir,” to all of Dr. Brown’s inquiries.

    As I said in my article above, (and this video proves it,) just telling a child “you were a sinner but G-d died for you and loves you,” doesnt offer any sense of calm or assurance, especially since the discussion is slanted from the start against us as humans (declaring us sinners) at such a young age.

    Telling a boy of 8, 9, 10, or in this case 11 that he needs to recognize his sin is utterly fruitless. A child lacks any sense of what Sin is.

    Naturally, the parent is left to explain sin to the Child, and to exclaim G-d’s displeasure with such.

    What many Christians fail to realize is that children cant even process such information properly, and dont often know how to disassociate actions from themselves.

    If you rebuke a child, the child might not know the difference between your rebuke of their actions vs a rebuke by you of THEMSELVES.

    If you tell a boy that G-d is pissed at him just for coming out of the womb, a kid cant process that.

    You can tell that boy he is saved until you are blue in the face, and he will still have doubt. Why?

    1. You inadvertently called the act of him being born a sin, (despite the fact that children know nothing of those matters, you ask babies to contemplate that.)

    2. He will see in his daily life growing up in Church the gossip train, the personal interpretations and opinions of his parents contrasted with the “party line” of whichever congregation he attends, etc.

    2. If the boy lives in a family made up of members within different Christian sects, he will see the latent contradiction between “Jesus loves his folliwers, he loves everyone,” against the backdrop of a Church that says “he doesnt love this or that heretical group.” That situation will naturally produce doubt in the boy’s mind.

  19. 10th man says:

    Some talk of “blindness” above.

    • Genesis: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a law giver from between his feet …. until Shiloh comes.”

    • Sanhedrin: ‘What is the Messiah’s name? …. His Name is Shilo. For it is written “Until Shilo comes”‘

    • Sanhedrin records when they lost the scepter; the power of life and death; capital punishment: ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed from Judah and Messiah has not yet come.’

    • When was it recorded the Scepter departed? – Forty years before the Temple destruction.

    • Therefore according to the rabbis and the Sanhedrin; the Messiah had to come before 30AD.

    • Oddly enough this is the same year a Jewish man appears in Israel changing the course of mankind and is known as Messiah throughout the earth even 2000 years later.

    • This man said he came to open the eyes of the blind.

    • Thefore blindness is a choice.

    • LarryB says:

      10th man
      You wrote
      –• Sanhedrin records when they lost the scepter; the power of life and death; capital punishment–

      Q. Are those two different statements as in ‘they lost the septer -and -The power over life and death? Or, are you saying the septer represents the power over life and death?

      I read Genesis 49.10 the commentary I found on the “scepter” is. ” The privilege of providing Israel’s sovereign Ruler-symbolized by the Royal Septer shall not pass from the house of Judah.

  20. Concerned Reader says:

    So, 10th man. Sanhedrin? Why not cite your sources with a folio number and provide the text of the passages you are quoting? Oh, thats right, those quotes dont say what you claim.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader;

      Sanhedrin 98b:
      “Rab said: The world was created only on David’s account .24 Samuel said: On Moses account;25 R. Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah’s] name? — The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come.”

      • 10th man But where does it say this – > • Sanhedrin records when they lost the scepter; the power of life and > death; capital punishment: ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed > from Judah and Messiah has not yet come.’

        1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • 10th man says:

          Yourphariseefriend; It comes from a commentary on the Talmud. Is your sight – on the source of a sentence, or if the Sanhedrin really lost the scepter in 30AD?

          • 10th man No such commentary and we haven’t lost the scepter 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            10th man, if “it comes from a commentary on Tanach,” as you say, why are you shy about citing your sources?

          • Dina says:

            10th man, furthermore, is the Talmud authoritative? Also its commentaries? Is that why you cite it? Just curious.

          • 10th man says:

            Yourphariseefriend; Hashem has given you freedom to view the past as you please, yet viewing the past as you please comes with a price.

            Dina; Talmud is cited for historicity not authority.

          • Dina says:

            Then what is the point of citing it to “prove” that the scepter departed from Judah and the messiah already arrived?

            (I used the ironic quotation marks because you presented fake citations.)

            You wrote, ” Hashem has given you freedom to view the past as you please, yet viewing the past as you please comes with a price.”

            You are free to lie about what the Talmud says to shore up your idolatrous beliefs, but that comes with a price.

            You lose integrity and credibility. And honor.

          • 10th man says:

            Dina, sources were honestly stated. History speaks for itself. I have no desire to engage the behavior you are exhibiting therefore I must respectfully decline further discussion with you.

          • 19th man The sources were NOT honestly stated. You were lied to by those who led you to believe that those statements can be found in the commentaries – they cannot, they are Christian fabrications. And history does have a way of speaking for itself – but if you choose, it could be speaking to you. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            10th man wrote:

            • Sanhedrin records when they lost the scepter; the power of life and death; capital punishment: ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed from Judah and Messiah has not yet come.’

            Then he wrote: “sources were honestly stated.”

            10th man cannot produce a source for a statement he presented in quotation marks (one of the uses of quotation marks is to indicate an exact quote). There is no such Jewish source, yet he claims this source is honestly stated.

            Folks, do you see a problem here?

            10th man cannot prove from Scripture alone that Jesus was the messiah, a true prophet, and God.

            10th man, if you are willing to engage with me, may I suggest we stick to just the Tanach? And my challenge to you then is: can you prove from Scripture that the Jewish position on Jesus is wrong?

            Fact is, Jesus was neither the messiah, nor a prophet, nor God.

            Christians have changed the definition of messiah to a suffering, dying, rising figure that atones for all the sins of mankind, an unbiblical definition if there ever was one. Messiah is simply a corruption of the Hebrew word mashiach, which means anointed, and the political figure who will ascend the Davidic throne and usher in an era of world peace and universal knowledge of God, bring back the the exiles, restore the Temple and its sacrificial system, and vindicate Israel in the eyes of the world, is not even identified by the title “The Messiah” in the Hebrew Bible. Jews have taken to calling him “the mashiach” which simply means “the anointed one.”

            According the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Jesus does not fit the picture of the messiah. He never ruled Israel as king, nor did he fulfill the mission of the messiah as briefly outlined above. Instead, after his death the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were massacred and those remaining scattered throughout the Diaspora, and thus began a dark period of nearly two thousand years of horrific Christian oppression of the Jews. Not exactly messianic quality, that.

            Jesus was also a false prophet for the simple reason that he failed the two prophet tests outlined in Deuteronomy. Test number one: per Deuteronomy 13 any prophet who produces a sign but then leads the people into worship of unknown gods is a false prophet. Christians believe Jesus produced the requisite sign (debatable, but more on that in a moment), but he also introduced a new type of worship heretofore unknown to the Children of Israel: worship of himself.

            Test number two: per Deuteronomy 18, if a prophet fails to produce a sign, he is a false prophet. Jesus predicted that the Temple and all its buildings will be so thoroughly destroyed that not one stone will be left standing on another (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6). False prophecy: some of the remains of the Temple buildings still contain more than one stone standing on another; furthermore, the outer Western Wall remains standing to this day. Jesus predicted that during this generation he would come in the clouds and sweep up all his believers (Mark 13:26, 30). False prophecy: that did not happen. Jesus (grudgingly) gave the sign of Jonah to the skeptical Pharisees who demanded a sign (which, according to Deuteronomy 18 they are supposed to do). He claimed he would rise again after three days in the earth (Matthew 12:38-40). False prophecy: he failed to present himself to the Pharisees in fulfillment of this sign on the third day after his death–or any other time thereafter, for that matter.

            Jesus is not God per Deuteronomy 4. I suggest you read it. Most instructive.

            The only reason there are Jews today who identify as Jews is that our forbears testified on the pain of death that Jesus was a false prophet, a false messiah, and not God. Had they all succumbed, there would not exist a single identifiable Jew today, just as the Picts, Druids, and others who accepted Christianity’s message did not produce descendants who can identify as Picts and Druids–and just as those Jews who did jump ship and join Christianity assimilated into the general population within a few generations.

            Christians dream of the conversion of Jews en masse, but this event would constitute national suicide.

            I don’t think 10th man intends to advocate the end of the Jewish people, but that would be the result of his missionizing if he were successful.

          • 10th man says:

            Yourphariseefriend, Sanhedrin 98b was quoted, copied and pasted – as posted above, the second source is from a commentary on the Talmud, again as posted above. Therefore how can you say; “The sources were NOT honestly stated” ???
            The vagueness of the second source is irrelevant unless you intend to value commentary on the Talmud over historical fact. The Sanhedrin lost the power to exercise capital punishment is historical fact, making the above a valid midrash, even if you don’t like where it points – since we are discussing “honesty”.

          • 10th man There is no such commentary on the Talmud, there is nothing remotely like it. It is a well known fabrication produced by missionaries to dupe people – so your quote was NOT honest. And the Sanhedrin did not “lose” the power to judge capital crimes they gave it up (if you want to quote the Talmud and its commentaries) – and whose idea was it to associate the judgment of capital crimes with the scepter of Genesis 49:10? Not the Talmud but the missionary forger.

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Eleazar says:

        Thanks for proving CR’s point. Partial sentences, no context. Cherry picking a couple of sentences out of a long testimony. There are m,any references to “his name” (moschiach’s) in Sanhedrin. You picked the one that fit your out of context narrative.

        https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.99a?lang=bi

  21. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man (with respect,) Sanhedrin 98b is what is called an aggadic midrash. It only reflects the opinion of any number of rabbis, its not something Jews have to believe. Its like a pastor’s sermon, or a Christian author’s inspirational words. Its not meant to be seen as doctrine.

    If you read the context of Sanhedrin 98b, you will see it is not a prophetic statement of the messiah’s name, the context merely reflects the opinions of students about their rabbinic teachers.

    R. SHELA said that, “the Messiah is called Shilo for it is written, until Shilo comes'” (Genesis 49:10). R. YANNAI said, “It was Yinnon” (Psalm 72:17). R. HANINAH said, “It was Haninah” (Jeremiah 16:1) (San.98b).

    Do you see what’s happening there? A teacher’s name (Yannai) is fitted with a title (like Yinon.)

    Each rav is believed by his students to have potential to be the Messiah.

    In Judaism, it is believed that the king Messiah (a generic king of Israel,) can come in any generation that is worthy of his appearance. So, the rabbis in Sanhedrin 98b are saying that the students of Rav Shelah believe the name of Messiah will be Shilo, which to them indicates that their rabbi Shelah has the potential to be the Messiah. The other titles fit the names of the other rabbis in the text.

    This text isn’t about Yeshua.

  22. Concerned Reader says:

    ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed from Judah and Messiah has not yet come.’

    Sanhedrin records no such words. You have taken a miscontextualized passage from an obscure high holiday Machzor (a prayer book,) and whatever messianic site you got this from conflated this prayer with the texts in Sanhedrin. Its an entire fabrication, sorry to say.

  23. Concerned Reader says:

    Con, one of the most frustrating comments I hear from Christians is that real Christians never hated or persecuted Jews.

    The sad truth Dina is that many many Christians do not know their history. The protestant world likes to blame all the violence against Jews against the Catholic Church, as though the Protestant Reformers didn’t carry forward the same disdain for Jews. Many Christians also don’t realize how even if a Jew converted to Christianity, he was still suspected of “Judaizing,” IE of not abandoning his Judaism sufficiently.

  24. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, will you admit that Talmud does not contain the proof, or more accurately, the allusions you think it contains? I explained to you the way the rabbis might read the midrashim you quoted.

    Think about it logically for a moment. Why would a book compiled by the descendants of Pharisees (a sect the New Testament vilifies all the time,) contain proofs for your messiah?

    That’s like saying that if I read the Samaritan Torah, I will find allusion to Mount Moriah as the chosen place of G-d, as compared to Gerizim. Its like suggesting that if I read the Quran, I would find proof that Jesus died for humanity’s sins.

    Everyone knows that the Samaritans reject Mount Moriah as the site of the temple, so why would I go looking there to prove that?

    Such assertions are just an absurdity when one knows that the Talmud as a corpus rejects major premises of Christian theology. A set of volumes that were compiled after 135 CE (post bar Kochba rebellion) can hardly offer allusions to Jesus as the Messiah.

    I don’t mean that to sound rude, just to let you know that looking to Talmud to bolster your Christian faith is totally anachronistic.

    By consequences do you mean eternal hell fire for having a question about Jesus’ qualifications? Doesn’t your New Testament say “test all things and hold fast to what is good?”

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader; your statement: “Pharisees (a sect the New Testament vilifies all the time,)” is provably false, betraying your bias.
      And the statement posed as a question; “By consequences do you mean eternal hell fire for having a question about Jesus’ qualifications?” betrays stereotypical prejudice.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        I am treating Christians stereotypically? You could have fooled me.

        I was baptized at age 7 and raised in a religuous Christian home. I have a degree in comparitive religions, so I’ve studied the Christian Bible from many different angles, as well as the Church Fathers.

        You dont consider the overall New Testament portrayal of the Pharisees to be a sign of partial internal bias in the New Testament against their sect?

        You dont find it truthful on my part to be pointing out that the New Testament is calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers, white washed walls, hypocrites, or children of the devil who dont know G-d? Do you not think it rational that this portrayal of Jews has led to much harm? Do you deny this portrayal is in the text?

        Do you disagree that there is a genre of literature eclusively dedicated to demeaning the rabbis?

        If you can demy with a straight face the generally negative portrayal of the pharisees as a sect in the NT, then there isnt much reasonable discussion we can have.

        I have Catholic as well as Protestant family, and as I said, a good knowledge of the Church fathers.

        My “Bias” against Christianity is merely that I will not let Christians say “those weren’t real Christians,” when I point out ugly truths about our tradition.

        Paul of Tarsus was a true Christian. The authors of the gospels (who wrote about “the Jews,” and said each of those things above,) were true Christians.

        Perhaps you should read other posts of mine on this blog before saying that I am biased against Christianity.

        Write Concerned Reader in the search bar at the top of the page. You will find posts where I discuss both sides of the issue.

        You will still find my posts from when I was a believer in Jesus on this blog, alongside my current posts.

        I never attack Jesus’ character in my posts. I never say he was evil, or that he was lawless. I look at the New Testament in its historical context.

        The problem is that you have not read enough of my posts on this blog before drawing your conclusions.

        • 10th man says:

          Concerned Reader, ones Christian past nor academic credentials does not necessarily determine ones currrent attitude.

          “You dont consider the overall New Testament portrayal of the Pharisees to be a sign of partial internal bias in the New Testament against their sect?”
          — (No, I do not. I have read the text numerous times never coming to such a conclusion. Granted a biased reading of selected passages could led to such a conclusion) —

          “You dont find it truthful on my part to be pointing out that the New Testament is calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers, white washed walls, hypocrites, or children of the devil who dont know G-d?
          — (I do not find it truthful to pick passages out of context, especially historical context – suggest you research why those exact words were chosen and to whom they were spoken – hint: a religious slaughter by the prior generation) —

          “Do you not think it rational that this portrayal of Jews has led to much harm?”
          — (No, aside from human nature, it is irrational. The problem is not Jews or Christians nor the Greek Scriptures, but human nature) —

          Do you deny this portrayal is in the text?
          — (I do not deny this portrayal of a select group of individuals to whom the words were spoken. Since they were all male, can the words be honestly applied to every man or only to those men?) —

          Do you disagree that there is a genre of literature eclusively dedicated to demeaning the rabbis?
          —(I do not disagree. Do you disagree that there is a genre of literature exclusively dedicated to demeaning Christians?)—

          “If you can demy with a straight face the generally negative portrayal of the pharisees as a sect in the NT, then there isnt much reasonable discussion we can have.”
          —(You have changed your prior post wording from “all the time” to “generally”. Reasonable discussion begins with reasonable portrayal)—

  25. Concerned Reader says:

    Do you disagree that there is a genre of literature exclusively dedicated to demeaning Christians?)—

    I know of only 3 polemical Jewish texts written against Christianity directly. These texts are not written to oppose Christians themselves as people. (Theological opposition to Christians was actually illegal in antiquity and the middle ages for Jews to engage in, as was proselytizing, intermarrying, eating with gentiles, partaking in society, etc.) but there is nothing in Judaism that is even remotely on the level of Christian anti Judaism, and the amount of text written by Churchmen to justify it.

    Not only that, but while Christians decided to do things like burn the Talmud, censor it, burn Synagogues down, decided to pray for the conversion of “perfidious Jews,” (a prayer that was in place until Vatican II,) and while people decided to have “passion plays” that routinely roused up mobs of Christians to go harm Jews, Jews managed to say some relatively benign things about Jesus.

    Rabbi Jacob Emden was writing against another failed messiah called Shabbatai Tzvi. He wrote a letter to the Church saying things like this in paraphrase,

    “it is a habitual saying of mine to say that the Nazarene performed a double kindness in the world, for not one of our sages spoke more majestically about the eternity of the Torah and its validity, but also taught the gentiles the laws that apply to them,” (such as the rules you read in Acts 15.)

    Jewish polemic is written to respond directly to specific Christian theological slanders of Jews that were historically applied to the whole people by the Church even though the New Testament itself speaks to “a select group of individuals.” IE see the doctrine of the erring Jew.

    You saw that I wrote about these issues in my letter to Gen Guk Gean.

    “No, I do not. I have read the text numerous times never coming to such a conclusion. Granted a biased reading of selected passages could led to such a conclusion”

    Exactly. My point is that bias exists and develops internally as the books of the New Testament developed.

    The Synoptics might say on the one hand that the responsibility for Jesus’ death lies in the hands of the leaders. The Synoptics show a few Pharisees who actually helped Jesus and liked Jesus well enough.

    In Acts, Gamaliel defends the right of the apostles to exist, and tells Jews to leave them be. In fact, if I read the synoptic texts charitably, nobody should be typecast because of the death of Jesus, because those books claim it was by G-d’s will that Jesus died.

    We are told that a large group of early Christian believers were from the sect of the Pharisees.

    However, on the other hand, the gospel of John merely relates to “the Jews” in a general sense, and as a whole, as a blind people who did not perceive the one sent to them.

    Where a select group is blamed in earlier texts, the whole people is blamed in the gospel of john, and portrayed as blind.

    Paul of Tarsus himself at 1st does not view the whole nation as blind, but he comes to the conclusion that G-d himself closed their eyes, if temporarily, for providential reasons, and later Christian editors even put this little gem into 1 Thessalonians 2.

    “For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from THE JEWS who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. THEY displease God and are hostile to everyone.”

    I think you missed the entire point of what I wrote earlier. There are texts that make blanket statements about THE JEWS that developed in the New Testament ITSELF (this cant be denied.)

    I agree with you that there was a historical context in which those discussions initially occurred. My point to you is that the historical context in these situations has historically routinely been ignored by the Christians themselves throughout their history.

    As I told Gean, you are commanded to love a hypothetical enemy, but you prove to be incapable of it.

    Its therefore irrelevant if the words of Jesus were spoken to select individuals, if a vast majority of later Christian writers made it common place to apply New Testament stereotypes to all Jews for all time, which the Church Fathers definitely did.

    You say “its not Christians or Jews” its human nature, IE you believe each human being has a sin nature, so they need to be saved, and therefore the evil behavior towards Jews was to be expected? Is that what you feel?

    I’m sure you are aware that Jews do not believe in original sin. Jews do not believe that a human is born morally broken, but that each is made in G-d’s image.

    Jews believe that a man is responsible for mastering his own evil inclination.

    Genesis 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but YOU MUST RULE OVER IT.”

    Why would G-d tell Cain he could rule over his sin if its impossible?

    Deuteronomy 30 15-20 Where G-d tells Israel to choose life that they may live.

    Are you not indeed claiming that the parents ate sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge? IE the parents left a bad example and a stain of sin via the fruit for the children, and the children therefore cannot help but follow in the sins of their parents? That is original sin in a nutshell. Ezekiel 18 flatly refutes it.

    Read the end of Ezekiel 22, specifically verse 30. Christians love using Ezekiel 22 and texts like Isaiah to say “see G-d cant find any good in Israel, or in anyone’s deeds, so regards them all as cursed.”

    HOWEVER, G-d regards Israel as cursed in Ezekiel 22 FOR A REASON!

    In Verse 30 its because he hasn’t found one person who will try to avert his wrath upon the people and stand up to him to save the people!

    Nobody wants to follow the example of Avraham who wanted to save ALL of SODOM, so long as he could find only a few righteous people.

    The Torah as a book believes in the free agency of man to make moral choices. Original Sin denies this basic biblical notion.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      “My point is that bias exists and develops internally as the books of the New Testament developed.”
      —(The same bias applied to the Tanach will result in the same conclusion. If one wants to bolster an attitude of anti-semitism, the Tanach offers more cherry picking opportunities than the Greek scriptures. It could be said that bias exists and develops internally as one leaves the Torah and enters the Prophets, but it is not said, because the writings were not authored by Christians)—

      —(“sin nature” and “evil inclination is six and a half dozen respectively, i.e. human nature. To say otherwise is to confuse biblical doctrine with religious doctrine, the latter being previously stated at the end of prior your post)—

      • 10th man says:

        yourphariseefriend,
        You honestly thought the above linked article would help??? After reading, I thought it wise to wait before commenting because of the harshness of the words which filled my soul. This article preys on the ignorant. So many demonstrably false statements caught my attention that I began to count them, then the distracting shock and awe campaign caused me lose count. The tactic you use; introducing ideas with “if” at the beginning of your article then treating them as fact towards the end – is there a fancy literary name which coveys the meaning; ‘manipulative dishonesty’?

        In an age where Jewish/Christian relationships are better than ever. At a time when many are building bridges of reconciliation. You have chosen to sow discord among brothers and burn bridges.
        I take it you are a real rabbi? If so, did you take an oath before men to repair the world or was the oath before Hashem?

        • Dina says:

          10th man,

          You levy serious charges against a good man. But you fail to back them up with any substance.

          Please cite a statement from that article that you deem false and prove that it is so.

          If you cannot do that, then of course I expect you will retract your words and issue an apology to the good rabbi.

        • Dina says:

          10th man wrote:

          “In an age where Jewish/Christian relationships are better than ever. At a time when many are building bridges of reconciliation. You have chosen to sow discord among brothers and burn bridges.”

          The rift between Jews and Christians can only begin to heal when Christians acknowledge the suffering their co-religionists inflicted on the Jewish people and explore the roots of that specifically Christian anti-Semitism.

          This requires great courage and tremendous soul searching.

          If you are interested in embarking on this painful yet liberating journey (the truth shall set you free, after all), then I highly recommend two well-researched books written by non-Jews on this very subject:

          Thy Brothers Blood: The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism by Malcolm Hay
          Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate by William Nicholls

          • 10th man says:

            Dina,

            “If you are interested in embarking on this painful yet liberating journey (the truth shall set you free, after all), then I highly recommend two well-researched books written by non-Jews on this very subject:”

            —(I’ve already been set free by the one you reject and have no interest in dredging up the past sins of others to discuss. Search you own Scriptures and you will find this sort of thing is forbidden)—

          • Dina says:

            It is forbidden to read the history of Christian oppression of the Jews and try to discover the roots of Christian Jew hatred so as to prevent its reoccurrence? Surely you jest.

            Jesus set you free so you are absolved of the responsibility to fairly examine the arguments of those who do not believe in Jesus? So you are here to preach, not to listen and engage in honest debate?

            Christians for centuries have been preaching at the Jews while refusing to hear us out with open-mindedness, compassion, and love. Are you willing to follow in that time-honored tradition?

            I challenged you on the Jewish proof that Jesus is neither messiah, nor prophet, nor God. Can you answer the challenge? Do you dare?

          • 10th man says:

            Dina,

            “It is forbidden to read the history of Christian oppression of the Jews and try to discover the roots of Christian Jew hatred so as to prevent its reoccurrence? Surely you jest.”

            —(it is forbidden to dig up the sins of others, it is forbidden to sow discord among brothers, it is forbidden to refuse forgiveness. What instructions did Hashem give to prevent a reoccurrence of being conquered and exiled? Was it to recount the sins of the Assyrians or was it to follow His instructions on love, peace and forgiveness ? surely you don’t jest, but instead rationalize your sin)—

            “Jesus set you free so you are absolved of the responsibility to fairly examine the arguments of those who do not believe in Jesus?”

            —(would you entertain arguments from me that your parents don’t exist or that your husband is a figment of your imagination and your children aren’t really yours? It’s not what I know but Who I know)—

            “So you are here to preach, not to listen and engage in honest debate?

            —(I gather you only want to debate about Christianity rather than honestly debating if your course of action is something Hashem approves of)—

            “Christians for centuries have been preaching at the Jews while refusing to hear us out with open-mindedness, compassion, and love. Are you willing to follow in that time-honored tradition?”

            —(I’ve been listening with open-mindedness compassion and love and what I hear saddens me)—

            “I challenged you on the Jewish proof that Jesus is neither messiah, nor prophet, nor God. Can you answer the challenge? Do you dare?”

            —(this Messiah is not for you)—

          • Dina says:

            10th,

            There is something particularly galling for the descendants of the oppressors to tell the descendants of the victims not to question the idea that this horrific weight of history is rooted in Christian scripture. The Jew asks a fair question; the Christian ought to be prepared to respond:

            Christianity claimed to lead its followers down a road that is morally superior to Judaism. Yet the blood-soaked pages of Christian history show that it failed spectacularly. Not only did Christians oppress Jews horribly, they also treated each other with great brutality (think of the religious wars between various sects of Christianity, the witch hunts, the brutal put-downs of “heretical” sects). A comparison between the followers of Christianity and Judaism shows that while Christians were busy oppressing and killing Jews and each other, Jews were quietly turning the other cheek, praying for their enemies (most famously in the prayers of Russian Jews for the well-being of the czars, many of whom were wicked, vicious, murderous anti-Semites), studying Torah, and helping each other survive.

            But that is not the only fair question the Christian ought to confront. He must explore the roots of past anti-Semitism not to “sow discord” but to make sure the same mistakes are not repeated.

            Your refusal to examine the Jewish position tells me that you do not wish to engage in honest debate: “would you entertain arguments from me that your parents don’t exist or that your husband is a figment of your imagination etc.” Saying that you do not need to examine your own position nor the position of your opponents is an expression of hubris, forgive me for saying so.

            You only want to debate whether God approves of my course of action. But that is between God and me. The question of which religion holds the truth is not a personal question but a public and important one. If you refuse to engage, how can you honestly seek truth or help others gain clarity?

            I would never tell an atheist challenging my belief in God, “I just know what I know about Whom I know, so take that, sinner!” I would (and did) sit down with such a person and provide him with the evidence for God.

            You tell me that this messiah is not for me. I agree. He is not for you either. He is no messiah.

            May God Who is the Father of us all lead us in the light of His truth.

          • 10th man says:

            Dina,

            “There is something particularly galling for the descendants of the oppressors….”

            —(you assume to much)—

            “the Christian ought to be prepared to respond:”

            —(I am prepared and have responded, you don’t accept my response)—

            “Christianity claimed to lead its followers down a road that is morally superior to Judaism.”

            —(“Christianity” is more often than not, quite different than following the one you reject. Comparing Christianity to the one I follow is like comparing modern Judaism to a person who follows Abrahams example. (For instance you should be looking forward to the promise rather than dwelling on past sins of past oppressors). If Jewish history has taught you anything, you would know; Great moral leaders do not always ensure great moral followers)—

            “……the Christian ….. He must explore the roots of past anti-Semitism not to “sow discord” but to make sure the same mistakes are not repeated.”

            —(you misunderstand true Christianity. True Christianity requires a change of heart, it is not achieved through the exploration of the past sins of others. Admittedly there is value in learning from the mistakes of others, but this is not the cornerstone of a true walk with Hashem. He will point out what needs to be known without me digging up the sins of others, broadcasting them to the world and then rationalizing the behavior under the guise of self protection)—

            “Your refusal to examine the Jewish position tells me …….”

            —(again, you assume to much. I’ve examined the Jewish position; in most respects it is a great foundation to build on)—

            “Saying that you do not need to examine your own position nor the position of your opponents is an expression of hubris, forgive me for saying so.”

            —(I forgive you, but disagree. I feel no need to examine the possibility of the sun not rising tomorrow, nor do I feel the need to prove to you that it will indeed rise, but I am open to entertain your arguments that the sun will not rise tomorrow, who knows, maybe you live in Alaska)—

            “You only want to debate whether God approves of my course of action. But that is between God and me.”

            —(didn’t you just mention “hubris”?)—

            ” The question of which religion holds the truth is not a personal question but a public and important one. If you refuse to engage, how can you honestly seek truth or help others gain clarity?”

            —(I have engaged this question for years. My conclusion is generally most religions contain some truth, but no one religion contains all the truth. If a persons journey ends in a religion their religion has failed them. Religion is not a destination, but a vehicle to get you to the One who has all the truth – it is supposed to take people to Hashem)—

            “You tell me that this messiah is not for me. I agree.”

            —(Being in agreement on this point, what fuels your obsession with the subject?)—

            “He is not for you either”

            —(really? (It’s obvious why you would think that, but I’m curious why you would even care?) He has demonstrably been and is experientially a Messiah for me)—

            “He is no messiah.”

            —(I disagree. Lest you accuse me of following in the traditions of close mindedness rather than love, compassion and open mindedness I will hear your best proof of the above statement)—

            “May God Who is the Father of us all lead us in the light of His truth.”

            —(amen, amen)—

          • Dina says:

            Nope, I’m done. I do not debate shameless liars.

            I will take hours of my time to engage in reasoned dialogue, to try to gain clarity for both sides, with someone who is sincere and honest, as I have done and continue to do with Concerned Reader.

            But once you get caught in a lie–more than once!–and do not retract your words and apologize, it’s over. You can’t have honest dialogue with a liar, obviously.

          • 10th man says:

            Dina,
            Thank you, best wishes in staying true to the course you have lined out for yourself.

        • Jim says:

          10th man,

          You make the claim that “Jewish/Christian relationships are better than ever,” but that R’ Blumenthal has sown the seeds of discord, etc. I wonder that you do not see the irony in these claims. Did you not come here to accuse the Jewish people of being blind? Did you not come here distorting Jewish teachings? If you were to ask me–though I suspect you never would–I would say that your comments do not promote Jewish/Christian harmony. As long as you misappropriate Jewish texts and teachings, you put an unbridgeable chasm between you and the Jewish people. You have stolen what is not yours, and peace cannot be reached until you give it back to the Jewish people. (I say this as a non-Jew.)

          Regarding R’ Blumenthal’s article, “The Guilt of Books”: I agree with Dina; if you are going to claim that it is full of demonstrably false claims, then you should actually demonstrate them to be false. Bombast is not argumentation. Outrage is not demonstration. Though your discomfort at reading the article is understandable, this does not elevate mere claims to sound arguments.

          But, perhaps before bringing your arguments, you would consider reading it again and considering it. Now that the initial shock has worn off, perhaps you might take the time to reflect. R’ Blumenthal’s works are sober and well-argued, and one will benefit from thinking them over.

          Jim

          • 10th man says:

            Jim,

            “Did you not come here to accuse the Jewish people of being blind?”

            —(no, other before me were discussing blindness, I merely I steered myself into the conversation. But since you ask; I’ve stated anyone following any religion is at least partially blind)—

            “As long as you misappropriate Jewish texts and teachings, you put an unbridgeable chasm between you and the Jewish people.”

            —(you mean you consider me an enemy unless I interpret Scripture as you tell me to)—

            “You have stolen what is not yours, and peace cannot be reached until you give it back to the Jewish people.”

            —(Hashem has instructed the Jewish people to give the Hebrew Scriptures to the world – how can I steal what Hashem has given me?)—

          • 10th man Exactly where did Hashem instruct the Jewish people to share the Hebrew scriptures with the world? And I see my article “guilt of Books” as one which promotes peace. Peace cannot subsist on a foundation of lies. 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            10th, please tell us exactly where you found this notion that God commands the Jews to share their Scripture with the world.

            This is not the first time you’ve been asked to substantiate your claims, and I see a pattern emerging of claims, assertions, and accusations backed by…mere assertion. A search for truth must include arguments backed by solid evidence.

          • 10th man says:

            yourphariseefriend,

            “Exactly where did Hashem instruct the Jewish people to share the Hebrew scriptures with the world?”

            —(Unless you interpret “being a light to the nations” as hoarding the Scriptures for yourself, hoping outsiders to notice how you’ve been blessed then wanting to join to gain access to secret writings which only you are allowed to interpret – effectively setting yourself up a the mediator between Hashem and man, then yes, Hashem expects you to share His words with the World)—

            “And I see my article “guilt of Books” as one which promotes peace.”

            —(I sincerely think you see it that way because you have surrounded yourself with people wanting to hear this kind of thing. I can tell you first hand your article promoted animosity in me whereas the Greek Scriptures never have)—

            “Peace cannot subsist on a foundation of lies.”

            —(Jewish/Christian relationships is not a “foundation” but just another brick a the wall that needs tearing down. The love of God, repentance and forgiveness – those are true “foundation”)—

          • 10th man The message we are called upon to share with the nations is NOT the Jewish Scriptures – It is the truth of One God and His absolute sovereignty And if the Greek Scriptures haven’t aroused animosity in you – they have aroused animosity in millions of others and if you care about God’s message of love you would want to know th

        • Sharon S says:

          10th man,

          Imagine coming across an article that portrays a certain ethnic or religious group negatively. What would your response be? Will you question the intent of the author ?Perhaps this author has had negative encounter with a certain individuals who happen to be from this group and is venting out to his/her audience?

          In this day and age ,this sort of thing is frowned upon .There will be a deluge of comments criticizing the author of this article in social media .

          What happens if a similar message is veiled in religious scripture? How will its adherents respond to that message?

          It is common ,in fact politically correct to hear response such as “This is not real Islam “, “a real Muslim will not do such and such” whenever there is an act of terror committed by those of Muslim backgrounds in recent times .Those who view these acts as being inherently rooted from the religion and highlight this openly are roundly criticized .Could there be any truth in their claims?

          Think about it ..if persecution perpetrated by one group of people to another systematically over a long period time ,could it be rooted in the instruction that the perpetrators receive -which could ultimately go back to their Scripture?

          I am not familiar with European history .I was shocked ,as you were after reading the article-What Rabbi wrote in “The Guilt of Books” is the truth. It is written from the perspective of a Jew who has studied the NT and whose people have been persecuted at by the adherents of the NT for a very long time. I can identify with that because I have read the Quran (translation) ,considered the fact that Christians are still continually being persecuted by its adherents in certain parts of the world and the Muslim response to these atrocities .How can one not conclude that scripture provides the groundwork for religious or ethnic persecution?

          Christianity and Islam are polar opposites .How is NT , which promotes love and forgiveness lies behind the suffering of the Jewish people? Why do I bring up Islam -Christianity relations into this discussion?

          Veiled within the message of love lies the message that the Jews and Pharisees ,in particular as hypocritical ,rigid and arrogant -believing that a strict adherence to the letter of the Law and holding up everyone to that standard as means to earn G-d’s favour. One may argue that Jews and Pharisees in the Gospels refers to those who were contemporaries of Jesus and not to all Jews for all eternity .One may also point out that the first followers of Jesus were Jews (including some Pharisees). But can a child who reads these stories in Sunday School or in Church tell the difference? Will their Sunday school teacher teach these kids discernment -kids that will one day grow as adults and carry these mindset in their lives ,until they are fortunate enough meet and be educated by the Jew?

          Even then ,are they open to hear what the Jew has to say? Are they open to consider the opinions of the Jew? Are they open to read the Jewish scriptures without any “lenses” and find that Jesus is not PROCLAIMED in its Scripture? That Jesus is the very antithesis of King David?

          Why bring Islam-Christian relations into this discussion ?
          I have experienced anti Christian propaganda where I live (Christians are a minority).I have read the lies and falsehoods written by certain ignorant Muslims who just don’t bother to hear what Christians have to say .I am frustrated when certain Muslims build their perception of Christians based on these lies and this affects real communication and dialogue . I see a similar situation here ,and that is why my response to Rabbi’s article is the opposite of yours.

          Do unto others as what you would want them to do unto you.

          Thank you.

          • 10th man says:

            Sharon S
            I indeed read your comment in its entirety, but didn’t need to read past the first sentence:
            “Imagine coming across an article that portrays a certain ethnic or religious group negatively.”

            You are already guilty of what you accuse others of. To be honest the Greek Scriptures do not ‘portray a certain ethnic or religious group negatively’ based solely on their ethnicity- for blanket statements about ethnic groups you need to go to the Hebrew Scriptures, but I digress. The Greek Scriptures single out groups of real individuals who lived at that time – they are people who acted a certain way. Read the Greek Scriptures, Jew and Gentile are equally portrayed according to their actions.

            No offense, but according to your comment you seem to only see what you’re looking for – why don’t you try looking for a fair non biased view to see if it exists. One of the big things causing problems in this world are people taking extreme positions according to their bias – don’t be like them, and then you’ll be part of the solution rather than the problem.

          • Sharon S says:

            10th Man,

            1.”Imagine coming across an article that portrays a certain ethnic or religious group negatively.”
            I was just asking you a general question -what is your response if you come across this sort of article ,say , in Facebook . I did not accuse the Greek Scriptures of anything at this point.

            Your criticism of Rabbi Blumenthal over the article answers my question.

            What am I guilty of?

            2.”No offense, but according to your comment you seem to only see what you’re looking for –
            why don’t you try looking for a fair non biased view to see if it exists. “
            I was searching for the truth on the nature of G-d . That the NT is guilty of Jewish suffering or that Jesus is not the Messiah-I did not look for that .

            I have laid down my thought process before arriving at these conclusions . I would be biased if my response is the same as yours.

            Is there such a thing a a “fair non biased view” where these two areas are concerned? Its either one extreme or another.

            Please recommend if you do have any titles that reflect this sort of view .

            Thank you

          • 10th man says:

            SharonS
            “Its either one extreme or another.”

            —(the fact that I disagree with this pretty much sums up my whole point)—

            “Please recommend if you do have any titles that reflect this sort of view .”

            —(Book of Romans in the CJB translation. Here v

            https://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/romans/

          • 10th man says:

            SharonS

            If I may add, since you bring up Islam:

            Currently, Today, Right Now, we have sects of Islam intent on wiping Israel from existence and driving the Jews into the sea. They hate the Jews with such passion they are willing to kill themselves just to kill a Jew. They want they want the Jewish race exterminated.

            Then on the other hand, Currently, Today, Right Now we have millions of Christians supporting Israel, loving the Jews and praying for peace.

            And some Jewish people are writing polemics against Christians because of what other christians did to other Jews in the past. In what world does this even make sense?

            A applicable quote from the movie: The Kingdom of Heaven

            “We fight over an offence we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended.”

          • Sharon S says:

            10th Man,

            I have read it -it seems to show a fair view in chapters 1 & 2 .I don’t think Chapter 7 shows an accurate picture though ,if you compare them with Psalm 119:

            Romans 7:7-10

            7 Therefore, what are we to say? That the Torah is sinful? Heaven forbid! Rather, the function of the Torah was that without it, I would not have known what sin is. For example, I would not have become conscious of what greed is if the Torah had not said, “Thou shalt not covet.”v 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, worked in me all kinds of evil desires – for apart from Torah, sin is dead. 9 I was once alive outside the framework of Torah. But when the commandment really encountered me, sin sprang to life, 10 and I died.

            Psalm 119:91 -96

            91 
            Your laws endure to this day,
                for all things serve you.
            92 
            If your law had not been my delight,
                I would have perished in my affliction.
            93 
            I will never forget your precepts,
                for by them you have preserved my life.
            94 
            Save me, for I am yours;
                I have sought out your precepts.
            95 
            The wicked are waiting to destroy me,
                but I will ponder your statutes.
            96 
            To all perfection I see a limit,
                but your commands are boundless.

            Which of the above accurately portrays the Jew and his view of the Torah?

            “The Torah was not a burden to the Pharisee, either by reason of the number or the difficulty of its precepts, or by the thought of the impossibility of completely satisfying its demands. And if there were ever a Pharisee in such a state of despair that he should cry, “O miserable man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” he would think of the Torah not as the cause of his anguish, but as the hope of his deliverance. And it was the Torah itself which kept him from ever falling into such despair; for it was God’s own word of help and guidance, the record of His endless mercy, the revelation of His love. Paul would[ 199] never have ascribed to the Torah such power to cause despair, unless he had ceased to feel towards it as a Pharisee would
            feel; and he ceased to feel so, because, in his mind, the place once filled by Torah was now filled by Christ. For him there remained of Torah only the shrivelled and misshapen corpse, instead of the once glorious and living form. The one is held up to reproach in the Epistles of Paul; the other is the object of endless praise, of reverent wonder, almost adoring rapture, in the literature of the Pharisees.”

            Pharisaism:Its Aims and Its Methods
            R.Travers Herford

            So,is the book of Romans really a “fair non biased view “ to this discussion?

            “A applicable quote from the movie: The Kingdom of Heaven
            “We fight over an offence we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended.”

            I would advice you to consider the books Dina suggested in her comment .
            Thy Brothers Blood: The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism by Malcolm Hay is a good one .

            Thank you

          • Dina says:

            Sharon, I enjoy reading your enlightening and informative comments. Also, thanks for the validation ;).

  26. Jim says:

    10th man,

    Your first comment relates itself to the discussion of the blindness of the Jewish people. Please allow me to comment on this as an idea.

    The necessity of the Church’s claim arose because of its abuse of Tanach. And it continues to be necessary for the Church as it abuses the words of the rabbis. The Church has imposed its own redefinitions of Torah concepts upon Tanach. This has been done by cherry-picking verses and taking verses out of context. This created a certain difficulty. The vast majority of Jewish people, and especially those that were familiar with Torah, did not recognize these redefinitions. However, the Church was putting forth the claim that it was teaching Torah. It had then to explain why the Jewish people, those to whom the Torah was entrusted, rejected these ideas, did not even recognize them as Torah. Because the Church could not prove through argumentation the legitimacy of their newly invented theology, they put forward the idea that the Jewish people had been spiritually blinded by God, made unable to see the truth.

    One can see this same move to discredit the Christian’s opponents on this page. Kavi, for example, is not content to explicate his understanding of prophecy. He must first discredit his opponents. He must first say that they have been blinded to the truth. This is why they do not recognize Messianic prophecies as such. This shows that he cannot trust his argument to stand on its own. Because he is going to ignore those parts of a prophecy that are inconvenient and is going to impose a context that does not exist in a straight reading of a passage, he must first explain away the opposition by saying that the reason they do not see it, is because they are bling. He is not content just to make his argument.

    And this is because his argument is empty. He takes up the passage in Isaiah that is supposed to predict the Virgin Birth. His own translation of Isaiah 7:14 shows that this does not refer to Jesus. Moreover, it is well known that Isaiah 7:14 says nothing about a virgin. In order to put the child of 7:14 into a different timeframe, Kavi mistranslates 7:16, so that he can make it refer to Isaiah’s son present at the time of the prophecy. He alters the passage to suit his theology. He has to force a Messianic reading onto the passage. He has to force a virgin birth onto the passage. And because he has had to force these “interpretations” onto the passage, he has to explain away disagreement by asserting Jewish blindness to Torah concepts.

    Kavi operates under the notion that he has been granted insight by God, while the Jewish people have been blinded by God. However, Kavi does not understand even one of the fundaments of Torah, that God is one and alone. This teaching is emphasized in Deut. 4, and it is to this truth that the Jewish people are appointed witness. Kavi teaches that God is three and not alone. Kavi, a self-appointed witness for God, who asserts the blindness of the Jewish people, does not grasp even the basics. It is his denial of the fundaments of Torah that make it necessary for him to claim that the Jewish people have been blinded. Kavi is an illustration of the Church’s claim generally, why it is necessary to claim that the Jewish people are blind. The Church, with its deviant teachings, had to explain away the disagreement of the Jewish people. It had to discredit them from the outset.

    Modern missionary movements continue to malign the Jewish people, even as they claim to return to the roots of Judaism. They take rabbinic teachings and impose their theology on those. Those rabbis that have kept that teaching alive are, of course, blind to the very teachings that they have preserved. The only comfort is that the Jewish people are in good company, inasmuch as the Christian has already distorted the words of the Almighty.

    The missionary is not content to let his arguments stand or fall under scrutiny. The claim that the Jewish people are spiritually blind betrays the weakness of the Christian reading of Torah. The missionary is not out to educate, or else he would restrict his comments to whatever passage may be in question. No, he is practicing the art of persuasion. And so, he must discredit his opponent. He cannot demonstrate the truth of his own reading, so he must claim the blindness of his opponent. The distortions of the Church are apparent to those that study Torah with care rather than an agenda. The light of this Torah has not blinded the Jews but given him the clear vision to see the distortions of the Church for what they are.

    Jim

    • RT says:

      Nicely said Jim. By doing that the Christian or messianic blinds himself from any teaching or real interpretation of the Bible. Someone like Kavi will never want to acknowledge a passage could have been misrepresented by the early church and Isaiah 7 must speak of a virgin. By saying that the Jews are blind, this makes it impossible to have a fair and reasonable discussion, and as you said, they are not able to look at a passage under scrutiny to determine if what they see is really what the prophet or writers of the Hebrew Bible meant, but only a reflection of the new testament teaching.

    • 10th man says:

      Jim,

      “The Church has imposed its own redefinitions of Torah concepts upon Tanach.”

      —(And the rabbis haven’t ???)—

      “This has been done by cherry-picking verses and taking verses out of context.”

      —(And Judaism never does this? Enlighten me, what are the four levels of truth found in Scripture?) —

      “they put forward the idea that the Jewish people had been spiritually blinded by God, made unable to see the truth.”

      —(Anyone following a religion is in part blinded, otherwise they would have a relationship with Hashem)—

      “Modern missionary movements continue to malign the Jewish people, even as they claim to return to the roots of Judaism ……………The light of this Torah has not blinded the Jews but given him the clear vision to see the distortions of the Church for what they are.”

      —(watching a modern evangelical christian vs orthodox jew debate is like watching two bald man fight over a comb)—

  27. Concerned Reader says:

    The same bias applied to the Tanach will result in the same conclusion. If one wants to bolster an attitude of anti-semitism, the Tanach offers more cherry picking opportunities than the Greek scriptures. 

    10th man, I’ve read Pagan polemic against Jews. Its of a different character than Christian polemic.

    A person may be able to take passages about say, the conquest of Canaan to bolster antisemitism, or passages where a prophet calls Israel stiff necked, or where the prophet highlights Israel’s sins ie a polemicist will point out Israel’s immorality, but there is both a qualitative, and quantitative difference in the type of anti semitism, and the reasons given for it.

    The New Testament claims that “the Jews” have been blinded by fiat. Not one or two people, but the whole nation unless G-d acts to open eyes, or unless leaders and laymen embrace Jesus.

    The claim is levelled that G-d hardened Israel so as to bring gentiles in and graft them.

    1 problem with the Christian scripture’s assertion here about the purported reason for the hardening of Israel is that the Jewish faith already had a means of incorporating a G-d fearing non Jew, without requiring a conversion, into the society.

    IE, the New Testament claim that Israel needed to be blinded so that non Jews could be saved is a false and erroneous assertion.

    Paul got his 1st converts from where? From among the G-d fearers, ie Jews were already welcoming non Jews into a relationship in the Synagogue before Christianity was in existence.

    The Torah talks about the resident alien, about how G-d loves the convert, the stranger, and the Jew based on the content of their character.

    As Jim said, the New Testament tells why the claim was made. Paul tried to preach Jesus in the Synagogue but he failed, so he went to the gentiles, and regarded Israel as blind until G-d lifts a veil from them.

    If I read an old pagan polemic against Judaism, there is a massive difference in the tone and rationale of the pre Christian polemicist and his gripes with Jews.

    A pagan chastizes Jews for holding what he sees to be irrational beliefs,

    (IE how can there be only one deity with a plan, when there is so much chaos in the wold?)

    How can you call G-d good when he says he creates evil?

    The pagan polemicist will chastize Jews for their seperateness, (IE why do you not partake of our frstivals or food?)

    The big thing you notice thats very different about pagan polemic though is that the Pagan will, for rhetorical purposes off course, agree with the Torah’s principles of free will,

    will agree with Jewish views about the negative effects of imagery in worship (much like Plato and Aristotle already did,)

    and will tell them things like, “reasonable people already know the wisdom of your laws, and have counterparts to it, so your antagonism to our cultures make no sense.”

    The Pagan argues against the idea that Jews have a moral high ground because they may have common values in their own polytheistic traditions.

    For the Christian polemical author, the very character of the Jew is treated as flawed due to hardness by divine decree, or as a consequence of sin.

    Christianity casts the non Christian Jew and non Christian Gentile as an opposing spiritual force.

    Also, because much of Christianity looks down on deeds (inadvertently,) Jews are not even respected by Christians for the fact that you share ethics with them.

    If you look at just the red letter passages, you get a book of ethics from a Galilean Jew.

    At least a pagan antisemitic polemicist could argue with a Jew without of necessity seeing his person as theologically damaged.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      What do pagan polemics have to do with anything – they share no common ground as Jews and Christians do – or are you regulating Christians to the Pagan world? If you want to discuss polemics, why not discuss polemics contained in the Tanach such as Jewish polemics against the Egyptians, against Assyrians, against Babylonians, against Pagans and the list goes on and on to include just about everyone. (I’m sure you will be quick to point out that the Tanach teaches to accept the foreigner, yet Greek Scriptures have number of flattering passages about Jews which aren’t acknowledged by those with bias). Jews want to blame the Greek Scriptures for Hitler? This is no more than a poorly veiled attempt to delegitimize the Greek Scriptures – anyone with an ounce of unbiased history knows Hitler hated the Jews for political reasons using religion as an aid in accomplishing his goals – as any evil leader does.

      “The claim is levelled that G-d hardened Israel so as to bring gentiles in and graft them.”

      Paul does make this speculation, in the hindsight of history it appears to be true, yet even though Hashem has granted these in, those who call themselves Israel continue to reject them and continue to write polemics against them. But the Jews write polemics against themselves and each other’s differing sect, against their neighbors – you’d think the Jews would be used to polemics by now – generally all the Abrahmic religions write polemics against themselves (differing sects) and outsiders. The real problem is the popularity of Christianity eclipsed Judaism by following one rejected by Jewish religious leadership – the rest is human nature. Btw; did Hashem harden pharaohs heart or did Pharaoh hardened his own heart?

      “If you look at just the red letter passages, you get a book of ethics from a Galilean Jew.”

      I could not agree more – You also get the correct interpretation of Torah.

      • LarryB says:

        th10man
        “Btw; did Hashem harden pharaohs heart or did Pharaoh hardened his own heart?”
        If I use an artscroll can I pass the test and if I get it right do I get a cookie?

          • LarryB says:

            10thman
            “Christianity” is more often than not, quite different than following the one you reject”
            Many people come here discussing a “different” Christianity.
            “Comparing Christianity to the one I follow is like comparing modern Judaism to a person who follows Abrahams example.”
            Who is it that you follow, Jesus? what makes him different?
            “(For instance you should be looking forward to the promise rather than dwelling on past sins of past oppressors)”.
            What is the promise you speak of? The Holy Spirit?

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB

            “Many people come here discussing a “different” Christianity.”

            —(I doubt very many mainstream Christians would dare to venture on such a site as this)—

            “Who is it that you follow, Jesus?”

            —(yes, I follow the teachings of Y’shua and his interpretation of Torah)—

            “what makes him different?”

            —(He made different)—

            “What is the promise you speak of? The Holy Spirit?”

            —(The Holy Spirit although promised is not “the” complete promise at this time, but a deposit or down payment for what is promised)—

          • LarryB says:

            10th man
            “yes, I follow the teachings of Y’shua and his interpretation of Torah”
            since it would be nearly impossible for you to explain the Y’shua you follow teachings, is there another website I can go to so that I can get a better understand his teachings?
            Is your understanding of his teaching yours alone? Are there others who share your beliefs?
            “The Holy Spirit although promised is not “the” complete promise at this time, but a deposit or down payment for what is promised”
            At the present time, since the Holy Spirit was promised, what does the Holy Spirit do, what is the promise? Do you know what the complete promise is?

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB,

            It seems I’ve quickly worn out my welcome therefore I’m going to take some time off to give the regulars here a break. I saw your post on the way out and wanted to answer one of your questions which caught my attention.

            “since it would be nearly impossible for you to explain the Y’shua you follow teachings, is there another website I can go to so that I can get a better understand his teachings?”

            There is no website that I know of, well there might be one now that I think about it, I’ll see if it’s still around, if so I’ll post a link for you, but it is only a approximation of some of what I believe and I make no blanket endorsement of everything contained on that site, but it is a great place to start or just roam around purging yourself of preconceived ideas.
            http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/

            But if your question is serious, rather than a website, the best thing to do would just read the four gospels in a version translated by Jews. David Stern has a good English translation and there is a newer translation, (not necessarily better); Tree of Life Version (TLV). I believe David Stern’s translation is free online;
            https://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/

            Wishing you a Happy Thanksgiving.

  28. Concerned Reader says:

    What do pagan polemics have to do with anything – they share no common ground as Jews and Christians do –

    THATS THE POINT. A Pagan has a different axe to grind when he is pissed at Jews.

    You said that “anyone can use a passage here or there to bolster antisemitism.” I wanted to test that statement, but more so I wanted to test how different groups of antisemitic people used the passages that they wrested from their context.

    Knowing how the contextualization is different shows a very different manifestation of antisemitism, that has an entirely different reason for being.

    The Pagan did not have a mostly theologically driven motive to color the way he saw Jews, or the way he saw their faith. Christians do.

    The point in me bringing up Pagan polemic is to point out to you that some pagans indeed were anti Semitic, but that their antisemitism had a thoroughly different basis.

    You claimed that ANYONE could decontextualize a verse here or there in the Jewish Bible to bolster antisemitism if they wished, with the implication that all the horribleness is due to

    “human nature leads evil men to do evil.”

    I brought an example of pagan compared to Christian antisemitism that shows that the character of Christian antisemitism is thoroughly different than that of other peoples; Christian antisemitism is more virulent because the Christian trusts that the majority of Jews are blinded out of the gate BECAUSE OF HIS New Testament TEXTS.

    A Christian historically has been mad at Jews because of what happened to Jesus, not because he dealt with Jews as a good people with a different culture.

    A pagan is mad for cultural reasons. A Christian has a set of Jesus colored glasses that make it difficult for him to listen to what Jews have to say in their own terms.

    For example, you came here quoting Talmud as historical support for a theological claim. The Jewish position, about a Jewish book was provided to you, but you cant hear the Jewish explanation.

    What business does a Christian (someone whose faith claims to be based on scripture alone,) have with using a book they don’t believe in?

    My point was that the Pagan world (those who would also pull a verse here or there from the Torah to bolster antisemitism,) still treated Jews as having a valid place at the table to discuss about life. Jews still had religious privileges under a Pagan system.

    Rights were stripped from Jews by Christianity for much of the last 2,000 years, for theological reasons. Christians decided that they could tell Jews what books they could publish concerning a corpus that Christians dont even believe in!

    With the advent of Christian antisemitism, preaching, not talking as equal parties, became the preferred method of Christian communication of Christian criticism of Judaism.

    “anyone with an ounce of unbiased history knows Hitler hated the Jews for political reasons using religion as an aid in accomplishing his goals – as any evil leader does.”

    Yes he did use religion, that’s the key. However, why was it so easy for him to do this in this case?

    It was easy for Hitler to rally his majority Lutheran population to do horrific things to Jews because they were already well accustomed to hearing Jews spoken of as “contrary to all men.”

    They heard these ideas on Easter, they heard them in the epistles, in passion plays. They had a cultural and religious underpinning to a mistrust of Jews.

    If they ever read Luther’s treatise “on the Jews and their lies,” they were already saturated with the idea that Jews were lesser beings.

    Why did the Christian population not freak out when Jews had to wear arm bands with stars of David? Why did Christians not freak out during kristallnacht and outlawing of Jewish businesses? Why no outrage at the existence of Ghettos? Why so ok with a forced relocation?

    Its because these were already well established actions the Church used to take when dealing with Jews throughout Christian history.

    There was a Ghetto for Jews in Rome way way before Nazis, and before Eugenics. There were laws in Christian canonical books that were just like Nuremberg laws, but that predated them by centuries.

    The Christian was putty in Hitlers hands precisely because Hitler used the established religiosity of his audience with ease.

    True, he molded an aryanized Positive Christianity for his own aims, but the point is, very few Christians saw it coming or resisted it well enough, because all of the hell that Hitler advocated, his audience had already heard before in their own religious context before he arrived.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      BTW 10th Man, I’ve been where you are at before.

      https://judaismresources.net/2014/10/01/exonerating-the-sinless-another-open-letter-to-concerned-reader/

      https://judaismresources.net/2014/10/13/exonerating-the-sinless-ii/

      These two posts were directed at me while I was still Christian

      • 10th man says:

        Concerned Reader,

        To ask if there were gasoline pourers, who they were and why they poured are all the wrong questions – that fire has long been ignited and burned. The question we should be asking is; ‘Who are the gasoline pourers today and why are they pouring?

        The Greek Scriptures are undoubtedly of Jewish origin, the only thing open to speculation is the extent of editing – of course a similar documentary hypothesis exists for the Hebrew Scriptures also.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader;

      “Christian antisemitism is more virulent because the Christian trusts that the majority of Jews are blinded …”

      —(this is hardly fair, Christians accuse heathens of being blinded by the world, they accuse Pagans of being blinded by Satan, abortionists of being blinded by feminism, gays of being blinded by demons, adulterers blinded by fleshly lusts, greedy are blinded by money, anyone who doesn’t believe is accused of being blinded by something. I get it, people don’t like being called blind, but Jews seem to take such a phrase more personal than most. Could it be that they also claim to be the only one who truly see?)—

      “For example, you came here quoting Talmud as historical support for a theological claim. The Jewish position, about a Jewish book was provided to you, but you cant hear the Jewish explanation.”

      —(I heard it, did you hear my reply? I value reality more than a disputed text in a disputed commentary. Only yourphariseefriend was able finally able to understand what I was saying when he responded ‘we never lost the scepter, we willingly gave it up’ – (to me, the same thing).)—

      “What business does a Christian (someone whose faith claims to be based on scripture alone,) have with using a book they don’t believe in?”

      —(it was an ice breaker. I believe it has value if understood properly what it is)—

      “True, he molded an aryanized Positive Christianity for his own aims, but the point is, very few Christians saw it coming or resisted it well enough, because ………. his audience had already heard before in their own religious context before he arrived.”

      —(or they were just a scared for their lives as the Jews were afraid for theirs, why did so many Jews go peacefully? My point is there are multitudes of reasons why the holocaust happened without even speculating Hashem’s reasons, to nowadays be repouring gasoline on a fire that has burned by putting all the blame on Christians Scriptures is an attempt to delegitimize the Greek Scriptures at the risk of starting another religious war. Hebrew Scriptures and Greek Scripture alike teach us this is not Hashem’s way, but rather to forgive and move on (give as before). We are living at a time when the majority of Christians love everything Jewish, and this is how they respond? One doesn’t need prophecy to know thwarting the instructions of Hashem usually ends badly)—

      • Dina says:

        10th, you wrote: “Only yourphariseefriend was able finally able to understand what I was saying when he responded ‘we never lost the scepter, we willingly gave it up.’”

        This is a lie. Rabbi Blumenthal (aka yourphariseefriend) never said any such thing.

        Have you no shame, sir?

        • 10th man says:

          Dina, I did not use quotation marks in my comment, below is the exact quote:

          yourphariseefriend says:
          November 20, 2017 at 1:34 pm
          10th man ……And the Sanhedrin did not “lose” the power to judge capital crimes they gave it up (if you want to quote the Talmud and its commentaries) – and whose idea was it to associate the judgment of capital crimes with the scepter of Genesis 49:10?……..”

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          Granted, yourphariseefriend doesn’t equate the “scepter” with losing the power to judge capital offenses but does admit they gave that power up. The point is he got the point that this was a historic reality rather than solely based in a disputed commentary.

          Btw, I only answer this rude behavior because I have no desire to misrepresent anyone, therefore I found the post, copied and pasted the statement in question – something you could of easily done. In the future, rude personal comments directed at me will go answered. I’ve respectfully communicated before to you; I have no intention in engaging you admist such behavior.

  29. Concerned Reader says:

    (it is forbidden to dig up the sins of others, it is forbidden to sow discord among brothers, it is forbidden to refuse forgiveness.

    Jews are not out to refuse forgiveness. Jews are not digging up sins. Jews are pointing out that there are roots to those past Christian sins, and if that isn’t acknowledged, the bad things can happen again.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,

      “Jews are pointing out that there are roots to those past Christian sins, and if that isn’t acknowledged, the bad things can happen again.”

      —(this is demonstrably false: Among the numerous defeats and exiles of Israel and Judah, which ones happened because they forgave and forgot the sins of their previous oppressors? Or does Scripture indicate other reasons?)—

      • Concerned Reader says:

        You already demonstrated that you are a liar by misquoting the Rabbi. Do you not realize that the comment is right there?

        He never said they gave up the scepter willingly.

        If you cant even read a simple comment honestly, you should leave the blog. We are not interested in being preached at.

        • 10th man says:

          Concerned Reader,
          I’ve honestly addressed this issue when Dina brought it up. Mind you, never asking for clarification or pointing out that perhaps I was mistaken and providing the actual quote instead she went directly to calling me a ‘shameless liar’ (that’s a paraphrase from memory in case you want to call me a liar also, but you already did, didn’t you?). You should read them, but I digress, I quoted from memory, therefore did not use quotation marks. It was a half misunderstanding having nothing to do with the point being made; that reality is of more value when judging truth than disputed commentaries. I made the connection between the scepter and capital punishment but yourphariseefriend confirmed the Sanhedrin no longer had the power to decide capital offenses. I accidentally conflated the two.

          At this time I would like to thank you and Dina for a rare glimpse into modern day Judaism. Unwittingly you do much to bolster a reason for the so called Christian view which is advocated here. Yet I will not judge all Judaism by the actions of a few here – some of my best friends are Jewish 😉

  30. Concerned Reader says:

    yet Greek Scriptures have number of flattering passages about Jews which aren’t acknowledged by those with bias

    If you would read all the posts I have written on this blog, you would see that I am well aware of this.

  31. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, please tell me where the New Testament accuses the Romans (say Pilate) of being contrary to all men or accursed.

    The Christian Bible focuses disproportionately on Jews as blinded, and you cant ignore that.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      The later part of chapter one of Romans immediately comes to mind, I’m sure there are others. Btw, I think this chapter even puts Jews before Gentiles.

  32. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, you have implied that “if we understood “true Christiamity” or distinguished the true Jesus, from that of religion, we would know what you know.

    Do you realize that this is a variation of the no true scotsman fallacy?

    If studying Christian history is only helpful, but not instrumental, then we cannot have a real conversation.

    What you are inadvertently asking people to do is believe in a religion of one. The relationship that is your own personal experience.

    Personal experience is valid only for the one who experiences it. You cannot have the expectation that anyone will believe based on a religion of one.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader;
      “10th man, you have implied that “if we understood “true Christiamity” or distinguished the true Jesus, from that of religion, we would know what you know.”

      —(likely true)—

      “Do you realize that this is a variation of the no true scotsman fallacy?”

      —(I don’t agree that the “no true scotsman fallacy” is a logical fallacy)—

      “If studying Christian history is only helpful, but not instrumental, then we cannot have a real conversation.”

      —(respectfully I disagree)—

      “What you are inadvertently asking people to do is believe in a religion of one. The relationship that is your own personal experience.”

      —(Hashem is One, those having a relationship with Him have a relationship with the same One, although different people being different will have differing experiences expressed differently. This takes the fine points of context of who’s who out of the realm of man and puts it squarely in the realm of Hashem to make such judgments. Yet broadly speaking, if a “True Christian” is defined as a person who follows the red letters, we can broadly speculate who is a real Christian with some degree of accuracy)—

      “Personal experience is valid only for the one who experiences it.”

      —(Concerned Reader; personal experience is all we really have, the rest are aids. If a person cannot experience a relationship with Hashem, what good is religion except to give us a false sense of security. If nobody’s experienced ever lined up with Scripture, who would believe it? Granted there are times when it seems to line up, but it was the times it did line up that gets us through the times it doesn’t.)—

      “You cannot have the expectation that anyone will believe based on a religion of one”

      —(I have no expectations – it is not my job to make people believe, but many have believed based on observing a religion of one)—

  33. Concerned Reader says:

    He is not for you either”

    —(really? (It’s obvious why you would think that, but I’m curious why you would even care?) He has demonstrably been and is experientially a Messiah for me)—

    10th Man, the majority of the Arab peoples embraced a form of monotheism with the advent and experience of Islam. That does not make Muhamnad a savior, messiah, or prophet does it?

    • 10th man says:

      I feel the question is poorly worded, many a Muslim would declare Mohammed just those things. The better questions are; Was Mohammed sent by Hashem? Was he anointed by God to do what he did? After reading the Quran, I conclude he was neither sent by or anointed by Hashem.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Exactly, so the experience a person has is meaningless. Jesus is rejected by Judaism for the same kinds of reasons that Christians reject Muhammad.

        Jesus is plugged into ambiguous tanakh passages which are not necessarily about him, just as Muslims do with Muhammad and the NT.

        You dont believe the no true scotsman fallacy is a fallacy?

        Well, thats one explanation for why you hold it then.

        If you can blithely dismiss centuries of Christianity’s history, its real world negative impact, and just lay the claim that the majority are wrong, nobody has any obligation to believe you, or any Christian.

        You are probably the 10th Christian I have come across who has to refute traditional Christian ideas, and then redefine Jesus to make your version of “the truth.”

        Are you a prophet?

        • Concerned Reader says:

          If I have to cut, paste, sift, and rebuild a Jesus that seems consistent with Torah, and call the majority of Christians wrong about every centeal idea they have, then it is better that a person should just go to the Torah, and to those who were entrusted to preserve it in its original language and form, namely Jewish people.

          Why dont you read the articles Starting Points, Why I Left Jesus by Concerned Reader, and What Does The Ressirection Prove by Concerned Reader.

          Let me know what you think of those articles.

  34. 10th man says:

    To whom it may concern,

    I barely arrived about 5 days ago? and already I’ve been accused of preaching, close minded been called a liar a few times, shameless once or twice and been asked to leave, all in one day. I debated honestly, admittedly I accidentally minorly conflated one comment, the mistake acknowledged. I avoided rude people and personal attacks, yet the natives became enraged. Therefore I think it best to give them a break to cool down, apparently five days of being here is more than can be handled.

    I would like to leave this before taking a break:

    It is my understanding that when Messiah comes the Sanhedrin will have to vote him in. If they can vote him in I suppose this means they can also vote him out. The ramifications of this are staggering. This means the leaders of modern Judaism have devised a system where they will always be in control and even Hashem’s anointed will have to bow to their authority.

    I think the Sanhedrin/Beit Din may be in for a surprise. Hashem’s Messiah bows to no man’s authority, they will bow to him.

    Hopefully this opens some eyes to what is really going on.
    Look to Hashem and to his annoited rather than to men, even Moses said he wished all men could be like him.

    • 10th man You can go – we won’t miss you. You can ignore history, but it comes at a price. You are also welcome to stay – should you so choose, but if you do stay and if you want us to consider the possibility that we are wrong, it would be nice if you would consider the possibility that you are wrong.

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • 10th man says:

        Fair enough,

        Since I’m a perceived irritant here, I think it wise to take a break, but would like to pose a question; If you had to choose between ignoring history or the instructions of Hashem, which would you choose?

        You might think this is not a choice that has to be made, and you’d be correct in most instances, except when it comes to a continuous digging up the past sins of others to broadcast to the world. Your argument is not with me but rather with Scripture. I will admit I could be wrong if you can convince me from Scripture it is the right course of action.

        Happy Thanksgiving

  35. Concerned Reader says:

    This means the leaders of modern Judaism have devised a system where they will always be in control and even Hashem’s anointed will have to bow to their authority.

    Not their authority 10th man. The authority of the Torah.

    It seems to me you think the rabbis are nefarious and power hungry? I dont blame you for holding this view, its the New Testament portrayal of Pharisees and Sadducees that you are projecting onto the rabbis.

    I dont know if you know why Jews accept the prophecy of Moses as supreme?

    Here is a hint. Its not about his personal authority, or his personality, and its not about his miracles that he did.

    G-d told Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3 that he would bring Israel out of Egypt and that they would worship at the moubtain.

    That mountain is where G-d gives the Torah. It was the nation living a complete redemption from bondage in Egypt by the hand of G-d through Moses, and the whole nation seeing Moses speak to G-d face to face, that proved to Israel that he was a true Prophet. Its not the charisma or authority of Moses that makes Jewd believe.

    Remember the magicians who copied some of Moses’ smaller miracles? That teaches Jews that authority is not established by signs and wonders, no matter who is doing them.

    The New Testanent has an analogue to this notion when talking about an anti Christ and false prophets. Signs cannot establish truth, only faithfulness to the commandments.

    Jews will know who the messiah is when a candidate succeeds in the whole mission, just as Moses succeeded in his whole mission.

    If it turned out that Jesus came tommorow, built the temple, regathered Israel’s tribes, and brought peace, the rabbis would annoint him king.

    In fact, Jesus could have proved himself to the Pharisees 2,000 years ago. If the ressurected Jesus had appeared to the Sanhedrin out in the open, he would have been accepted.

    In fact, he told the Pharisees (his critics) that they would see the sign of Jonah, but he only allegedly appeared to his students, not his critics.

    Christians believe in a second coming because they recognize that a total and complete redemption and messianic age has not materialized under Jesus.

    Jesus himself said he did not know when that day would come.

    The only things a Jew has to believe that a rabbi teaches are halachic rulings. IE If I have a question about a specific commandment and how to observe it, and I ask a rabbi, and he gives me an answer, (as long as his advice fits the commandment,) then I must follow it.

    In matters of theological opinion, such as Midrash, nobody has to believe what a rabbi believes.

    Judaism has no equivalent to Catholic infalibility, papacy, bishops, or dogmas.

  36. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, you were accused of lying because what the rabbi said is not what you took it to mean.

    It was not because you did not use quotes.

    Do you know why the rabbis “gave up” capital punishment? Its because they became a Roman Province, and they were forced to give up their sovreignty and autonamy.

    You were accused of lying because you used Rabbi B’s response to then springboard your position/hypothesis which you are aware that he rejects.

    You did the same thing with the Talmud when you 1st arrived.

    This is a common happenstance with people who come hear to preach, but not to learn. If I misjudged you, i apologize.

    The fact that you took the response you got, and then decided to say, Ah, I guess my view of Jewish leadership is vindicated is very condescending, and it shows you may have come here with a preconception.

    • 10th man says:

      “…. and then decided to say, Ah, I guess my view of Jewish leadership is vindicated”

      —(Concerned Reader, that is not what I said, but do you hear me calling you a shameless liar? No, because I understand it is a paraphrase of what you heard when you read my comment and I am okay with it, if I wasn’t, the proper thing to do is first seek clarity or politely expose the mistake. I don’t think calling people shameless liars is even on the to do list. I understand some people’s emotions run high when discussing religion, therefore I am not offended and we are good. But I can concieve a million other ways to run down my time than spend time with people so hostile to me that rather allowing me to correct a mistake they immediately launch into personal attacks)—

      “This is a common happenstance with people who come hear to preach, but not to learn.”

      —(I didn’t come here to preach, but I was unaware I was expected to sit at the feet of people who reject what is holy, true and dear to me)—

      You and I are good, I understand overcoming the evil inclination is a life long on going struggle common to all of us. Have a Happy Thanksgiving

  37. Nikola says:

    Ah, the irony. Only God can enforce such a confusion in the hearts and minds of people who reject clear teachings He gave us in Torah.
    Christians who appear here are indeed closer to truth than an average parishioner, but when you see how far all of them are, the relative advantage a messianic or freelancer has is unfortunately useless.
    How can someone complain about mainstream Judaism and their use of commentary, and then put all hers/his belief in a commentary of one Jew (Jesus)?! And this commentary (as preserved and cited in NT), is demonstrably false.

    Full disclosure – I believe that Torah and Tanach are self-contained and self-explanatory books that do not admit any commentary or interpretation, aside from the contextual interpretation (which any logical person would employ for any text). So, I don’t necessarily have “a horse” in this discussion.

    P.S. I started following this blog some months ago and had couple of “heated” discussions with other visitors. But to see hostility and bad words in this thread is very saddening. Please, contain your emotions and let reason and common courtesy prevail. Heed to the words of the wise Shlomo:
    “A gentle response deflects fury,
    but a harsh word makes tempers rise.
    The tongue of the wise presents knowledge well,
    but the mouth of a fool spews out folly.” (Proverbs 15:1-2)

    • 10th man says:

      Nice on point comment Nikola,
      One question for you please;
      You said:
      “……… belief in a commentary of one Jew (Jesus)?! And this commentary (as preserved and cited in NT), is demonstrably false.”

      Would you please demonstrate the “commentary of one Jew (Jesus)?! ….. (as preserved and cited in NT), is …..false.”?

      I only ask because I don’t think this can be done – (with honesty).

      • Nikola says:

        10th man,

        Here are some examples just from Matthew:
        (I will use Stern’s translation, as you recommended, to avoid “translation issues”)

        Matthew 5
        31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a get.’
        32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, makes her an adulteress; and that anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery.
        – This is in a direct conflict with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. At best it is a “new” teaching that is not supported by Torah.

        Matthew 5
        43 “You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Love your neighbor — and hate your enemy.’
        – This is a lie – it is not said at all to hate your enemy.

        Matthew 10
        34 “Don’t suppose that I have come to bring peace to the Land. It is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword!
        35 For I have come to set
        36 a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,
        a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, so that a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.
        – This is a blatant misuse of Micah 7, which does not state that a messiah is going to turn children against parents, but that they are in such a condition as a result of disobeying Torah. As a matter of fact judging by Jesus’ testimony that he is come to do those things, he would fit better the role of “Satan” than messiah.

        Matthew 11
        10 This is the one about whom the Tanakh says,
        ‘See, I am sending out my messenger ahead of you; he will prepare your way before you.’
        – But the Tanach refers to Eliyahu, and John the Baptist said himself when asked that he is not Eliyahu. Moreover, Malachi 1 gives prophecy that has dramatic and tremendous materialization, and none of it happened during the time of John.

        Matthew 13
        14 That is, in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Yesha‘yahu which says,
        ‘You will keep on hearing but never understand,
        and keep on seeing but never perceive,
        15 because the heart of this people has become dull —
        with their ears they barely hear,
        and their eyes they have closed,
        so as not to see with their eyes,
        hear with their ears,
        understand with their heart,
        and do t’shuvah,
        so that I could heal them.’
        – Just take Isaiah 6:10 and compare, you will see that the verses are misquoted and moreover taken out of context.

        Matthew 23
        35 And so, on you will fall the guilt for all the innocent blood that has ever been shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Hevel to the blood of Z’kharyah Ben-Berekhyah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar.
        – We clearly know that Zkharyah, the prophet, was not killed in the Temple.

        Matthew 24
        30 “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, all the tribes of the Land will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with tremendous power and glory.
        31 He will send out his angels with a great shofar; and they will gather together his chosen people from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
        – This is one of my favorites. Many end-time prophecies lumped together in a complete mess that does not make much sense. Of course, sprinkled with invented concepts that do not appear in Tanach. I guess the writer got lazy or tired towards the end of the gospel.

        Matthew 26
        31 Yeshua then said to them, “Tonight you will all lose faith in me, as the Tanakh says, ‘I will strike the shepherd dead, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’
        – Now i urge everyone to read carefully Zechariah 13 and understand who the shepherd in the prophecy is. Again, Jesus maybe inadvertently unveiled his true identity? Hint: It does not refer to messiah.

        • Concerned Reader says:

          Zechariah 13 is a particularly bad choice of a chapter to want to plug yourself into.

        • RT says:

          Good List, what about this one when Paul lied about the “12”? He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

          Wasn’t Judas dead?

          • Nikola says:

            RT,
            This list is a subset of exclusively Jesus’s own words, as per my original claim and 10th man’s question.
            Let’s stick to it for now because the other list, that includes all the mis-quotations and wrong interpretations from NT, is just too long. And that’s before you look at the inconsistencies and illogical claims.

        • Sister Nikola, if the people of God sticks to the LETTER of Deuteronomy 24:1 “Ervat Dabar; unseemly [moral] matter or things on private part ” then, any husband who wants to change his wife can use this scripture to excuse his own lust. This can happen in Israel that a man rise up from the honeymoon bed and say “i found something wrong there, so i want to divorce you!” I would have divorced many times unless Yeshua reinforced the SPIRIT of the Torah to reveal the solemness of the marriage covenant.
          Romans 3:31 says, “Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we ESTABLISH the Law!”

          • Nikola says:

            Gean,
            What about a nice guy who wants to marry a woman that was rejected by previous husband, as you give example? Jesus is calling that nice guy adulterer, hence judging him to death (nice guy is breaking one of the ’10 commandments’:
            “anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery.”

            P.S. It’s brother Nikola, not sister (no offence taken). If it was sister, I would not be allowed to discuss on those topics (as per 1 Corinthians 14:34)

          • Brother Nilkola!
            In this case, we need more of SPIRIT of the commandments regarding the marriage! There are so many NICE guys out there who approach the rejected wife with whispering nice words and offering nice place to do his own schemes! Rejection does not mean endorsement to free marriage; if so, the Jews in the Babylonian exile could have worshipped

          • Sorry, happened to send the incomplete sentence.

            “The Jews could have enjoyed the free worship of the pagan gods.”

          • Nikola says:

            Gean,
            I’m not sure I understand your point. Not all nice guys are “nice” guys. Some are genuinely nice guys who would like to marry divorcee – but if they follow Jesus, they cannot!
            And what about the woman who was given a get? Why is Jesus calling her adulteress, although she did nothing wrong?! That is completely unjustifiable and contrary to the Torah teaching.
            Bottom line is – Jesus is not re-establishing Torah, he is ESTABLISHING new rules/law.

          • Brother Nikola, i admit that there are genuinely nice guys who like to marry divorcee. I just want to see the endurance for the covenant prevails over the freedom of a spouse. It has been hard for me to live with a qurrelsome wife, so i once resorted to wilderness and after a while i thought it is better to endure in the marriage covenant. Thanks bro.

          • Nikola says:

            I’ll take your silence as an answer, or more accurately, lack thereof.
            And that’s on just one of the points raised about Jesus’s words that contradict Torah.
            The conclusion is a clear one that some of the Christians accept, but are sometimes hesitant to admit – Torah, and Tanch on one side and New Testament on the other cannot both be true.

          • Dina says:

            Nikola, one of the most frustrating experiences in debating with Christians is when I present an argument backed by Scriptural and historical evidence and they dismiss it without bothering to try to refute it, with such statements as “that’s a lie.” Then they provide claims for their case without bothering to bolster the claims with any sort of evidence. The debate then becomes unfair, dishonest, and one-sided.

            These particular Christians expect us to listen to them but they don’t extend the same courtesy to us.

          • I admit brother that i was not even aware that my understanding of NT is contradictory to Tanach, but as my faith journey gets further, i edit my faith according to Tanakh and at the same time attempt to find the coherent message in both.

          • 10th man says:

            “Torah, and Tanch on one side and New Testament on the other cannot both be true.”

            —(one of the biggest most often repeated lies ever)—

          • Nikola says:

            My comment was addressed to Gean, but I see that you found it appropriate to give your “one-liner”, although when presented with concrete citations and evidence you resorted to the tactics of hand-waving and pretending to be lost in translation.
            As for the biggest and most repeated lies ever, top of the list holds New Testament, and nothing comes close to it.
            Christians, especially freelancers, should once be honest and admit that they invented new religion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Torah. And there’s nothing wrong with that -.just join other religions, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Don’t try to hijack and pervert original message of the Torah.

          • Nikola says:

            Dina,
            that certainly seems to be the case. I just can’t understand why we have to explain same things again and again. I guess there can be only two reasons – either Christians are on a mission to convert Jews and can’t afford reason and logic to stand on their way, or they realize that their religion is opposing almost all of the Torah, but don’t want to admit they invented new religion. I think for many Christians, especially the ones who don’t belong to major congregations, the second reason makes sense. Somehow they want their religion to be ancient and want to piggyback on a clearly true and confirmed account that is presented in Torah and Tanach. But they also want to change the laws and rules and prophecy. Being in such a confusion must be uncomfortable for any thinking person, but they still persist in it.

          • 10th man says:

            Nikola,
            If you are going to call the Greek Scriptures a new religion, then be honest and call Judaism after the Second Temple a new religion.

          • Nikola says:

            10th man,
            I will certainly agree that there is, for my taste, too much digression and interpretation allowed by the mainstream Judaism. However, to call it a new religion would be a stretch. It is my understanding that fringe ideas are allowed but are not incorporated in the central teaching in Rabinic Judaism.
            One example can be a sect that considers Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson a messiah.
            Now, I consider those people to be in delusion. But then i must apply the same criteria and consider followers of other failed messiahs to be delusional, and based on the scriptural evidence that must apply to the followers of Jesus as well.
            I am yet to see any evidence for Jesus’ messianship in the Torah and Tanach – so, why exactly do you deserve special treatment, as opposed to others who misinterpret Torah and Tanach?

            P.S. In one of the comments Dina raised the point I emphasized some time ago. The main issue is not Jesus and who he was or was not. The main issue is the role of the true messiah. Christians invented the new role for the messiah that is nowhere to be found in the Tanach. And essentially replaced God by a messiah. Now, that’s a big problem.

          • RT says:

            Nikola:

            ” I just can’t understand why we have to explain same things again and again.”

            It is simple, you have to put yourself into a follower of Jesus feet. First, the new testament is 100% inspired, second, you are blinded by the devil, third, the intent of their conversation is to convince you that you are wrong. Let just see one passage that you said was a lie.

            Matthew 23
            35 And so, on you will fall the guilt for all the innocent blood that has ever been shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Hevel to the blood of Z’kharyah Ben-Berekhyah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar.
            – We clearly know that Zkharyah, the prophet, was not killed in the Temple.

            There are three possibilities.

            1) Jesus made a blunder.
            2) The writer of the Matthew made a mistake
            3) Zechariah, son of Barachias died exacly the same way as Zechariah son of Jehoiada.

            So, what are the probability? Assumption: 1 and 2 are equally possible.

            What are the chance of someone dying of the exact same death as the other Zechariah? People do those calculation every day, especially in the insurance business… Maybe one out of 100 if it’s a common death, but that specific death would be so unlikely, that it would be totally impossible to even consider it as a possibility. So, not only it needed to be a murder by the Jews, but also it needed to be at the specific same location as the death of the other Zechariah. So basically, it is 49.9999999999999% chance that Jesus made a mistake and 49.9999999999999% that Matthew made a mistake. (I honestly think that is it even less likely than that)

            1) Jesus made a blunder. 49.9999999999999%
            2) The writer of the Matthew made a mistake 49.9999999999999%
            3) Same death: 0.0000000000002%

            So what happens to a Christian who is faced with such an impossibility? Well, because he assumed that every word that came from Jesus were inspired, and that the writers of the NT could not make mistakes dues to the fact that the NT was inspired by the holy spirit, then that renders the statistical analysis in a totally different way.

            1) Jesus made a blunder. 0%
            2) The writer of the Matthew made a mistake 0%
            3) Same death: 100%

            Because the result must be 100% and there is just no other possibility, then 3 must be true.

            The assumptions will differ greatly between the two of you, and thus even if the explanation that you give makes sense and are reasonable and likely agreed by any non-believer who does not doubt the naratives, the different set of assumptions will render your explanation as invalid for any true Christian. Only after a long period of refutation and a willingness from the Christian side, would he realize that his assumptions might be wrong.

            Hope this helps.

            R.

          • Nikola says:

            RT,
            that seems about right.

          • 10th man says:

            Nikola,
            “It is my understanding that fringe ideas are allowed but are not incorporated in the central teaching in Rabinic Judaism.”
            —(I agree that is how it is now, but that isn’t the topic. Judaism after the second temple became just as much a “new religion” as Christianity did. It became a religion with no kings, priests, temple and sacrifices. There is no longer a balance of power, now lay people in the form of Rabbis use Torah passages (those applicable to civil judges) to take over complete control of the religious system. And since you brought up “new religion” – Rabbinic Judaism didn’t even exist before the Babylonian exile. New Judaism dismisses the old ways, awaiting Messiah to put things right. Christianity interprets and incorporates the old ways, also awaiting Messiah)—

            “One example can be a sect that considers Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson a messiah.
            Now I consider…”
            —(your honesty here is refreshing)—

            “The main issue is not Jesus and who he was or was not.”
            —(in my experience- I don’t believe this to be an honest statement)—

            “The main issue is the role of the true messiah.”
            —(which Messiah? It is only of late that modern Judaism has waffled on the view of more than one Messiah)—

            “Christians invented the new role for the messiah that is nowhere to be found in the Tanach.”
            —(Christians didn’t “invent” – pre Jewish interpretations were ripe for the taking, but, again, the role of which Messiah? If you try to define a particular Messiah by another Messiah’s role; you’ll be all confused)—

            “And essentially replaced God by a messiah. Now, that’s a big problem.”
            —(agreed, that is a big problem with some Christians, but we are not discussing what some Christians do, but rather what the Greek Scriptures teach and they do not teach to replace “God by a messiah”)—

          • 10th man says:

            RT,
            While you have your calculator out, what are the odds of the Temple burning down twice on the 9th of Av?

          • Nikola says:

            10th man,

            I don’t have anything against Christianity as a young religion. I’m not criticizing religion based on the age. The ideas in Christianity are just new and foreign to the Tanach, that’s all. Same goes for any other re-interpretation of a clear message from Torah.
            Regarding discussion about Jesus vs role of the messiah – I don’t know if your experience with other people tells you that it’s not an honest point from them, but for me that is the main point whenever I discuss things with my friends who are Christians. Jesus might’ve been a nice guy after all. So, before we move on to the vetting of someone as a messiah, we need first to establish why it’s important to do it in the first place.
            If you read only Tanach you will realize that the messiah is not as important as New Testament and Christians present him. He is merely a sign of the messianic age. For someone to focus on the messiah and neglect everyday responsibility that comes from observing Torah is a big mistake in my opinion.
            Concept of two messiahs is foreign to the Tanach, and I don’t care for it. As far as Tanach is concerned, there could be 100 messiahs, and they would still not be the “point of the story” and main concept in the promise of the new world.
            I don’t know much about the history of Rabinic Judaism, so someone else can debate those points. I come from a Christian background and feel more comfortable talking about Christianity. Of course there are many disjoint subsets of Christianity around. Some say that NT clearly says that Jesus is god, some say that it doesn’t. Some say that the day of rest is Shabbat, some say it’s Sunday, etc. In my experience, even the most filtered-down sect of Christianity is still wrong. So, I’ll much rather discuss concrete verses from Tanach and NT, then general concepts – since I don’t know what exactly everyone here believes in.

          • 10th man says:

            Nikola,
            I appreciate the candor of your last comment – very nice 👍

            “I don’t have anything against Christianity as a young religion. I’m not criticizing religion based on the age.”
            —(we agree on this point, but to paint Rabbinical Judaism as ancient when it is actually forty years younger than Christianity is engaging in revisionist history)—

            “The ideas in Christianity are just new and foreign to the Tanach, that’s all. Same goes for any other re-interpretation of a clear message from Torah.”
            —(no, no, no – this is what modern Judaism tells you to believe. Read Jewish Second Temple writings, read early Talmud, many writing before Rashi and the Rambam and you’ll be surprised what Judaism now rejects that it use to accept)—

            “If you read only Tanach you will realize that the messiah is not as important as New Testament and Christians present him.”
            —(agreed)—

            ” He is merely a sign of the messianic age.”
            —(now you’ve headed off track – who is telling you this?)—

            ” For someone to focus on the messiah and neglect everyday responsibility that comes from observing Torah is a big mistake in my opinion.”
            —(agree again)—

            “Concept of two messiahs is foreign to the Tanach,”
            —(again, who is telling you this stuff? – does Messiah come riding on a donkey or in the clouds?)—

            “In my experience, even the most filtered-down sect of Christianity is still wrong.”
            —(Christianity was never supposed to be about a sects of religion, but a relationship. It’s not about chain of transmission or apostolic succession but about the indwelling Holy Spirit. Btw; even the most Orthodox Judaism is not the Judaism of Tanach)—

          • This seems to be a very discerning response!!

          • Jim says:

            10th man,

            You write that Christianity is meant to be a relationship, and that it is about the indwelling of the holy spirit. I assume this means that you believe yourself to be so indwelt. From what I gather, you do not believe that Jesus is God. Other people, who also profess to have indwelling them the holy spirit, claim that Jesus is God, part of the trinity, like Kavi, for example, whose writings attracted you to steer into the conversation here. How can I know which of you actually houses the holy spirit?

            Jim

          • 10th man says:

            Jim,
            You’ve made an assumption which has led you into error. Where in the Greek Scriptures does it teach a person filled with the Holy Spirit is infallible?

          • Nikola says:

            10th man,

            the messiah in the Tanach is nothing more or less than an anointed king of Israel – albeit a one that is righteous, unlike many of his predecessors. But he is not going to do for anyone anything more than David did in his time, for example. Nobody will save themselves through the messiah. Nobody saved themselves through David. As a matter of fact, the messiah could be David himself – but that is not important.
            All these ideas I’m getting directly from Tanach. The vision that Daniel saw regarding messiah does not mean that messiah is going to arrive to the world on clouds – you can get that idea only from commentaries on those verses. Do you think that a real goat and a real ram were really fighting in the field at some point in history (also a vision Daniel saw)?

            Regarding the assertion that messiah is just a sign of the messianic age – I say this in a sense that nobody will go up to Jerusalem to worship messiah. People will go to bring sacrifices to the God, and messiah will serve a role that any king of Israel is supposed to serve. Not more or less than that. Again, it will be very similar to the time of king David. I don’t know that anyone had inclination to worship David, as you guys want to worship messiah.

            I really don’t care that much about Talmud and other extra-biblical writings. I would not care about nor read New testament if I was not raised as a Christian. But to say that somehow NT has more value or veracity than Talmud, or other writings is just not supported by Tanach. If you want to argue that it has as much veracity as Talmud than we are in a 100% agreement. But that puts you in the same boat as Rabbinic Judaism, the same one you are passionately criticizing.
            So if you want to argue that Rabbinic Judaism is not the same as Mosaic Judaism and that Talmud sometimes also contradicts Torah or Tanach, I won’t stand in your way, believe me. However, the discussion is about NT and the insurmountable discrepancies it has with Torah/Tanach. I’m sure that others here know more about Talmud and other rabbinic literature, so you can discuss details with them.

            P.S. I have to say that I noticed a trend among the Christian apologists (including Michael Brown, and Messianics for example). Whenever the support for the notions in New Testament is not found in Tanach, they diverge and start citing Talmud and other Rabbinic sources. This is a pretty weak strategy. But it’s necessary in the face of inability to support one’s position by clear verses from Torah and Tanach.

          • 10th man says:

            Nikola,
            Was Cyrus a Messiah according to Tanach? Is Y’shua “the” King Messiah at the end of an age? That age hasn’t ended yet, so who knows? People can disagree about the future, that shouldn’t separate them. Was Y’shua Messiah for the end of a past age? There is no argument that a age of Israel ended forty years after Y’shua as he predicted. It is also no argument that his life changed the course of human history. Additionally there are Tanach passages which can be applied to Y’shua – sure they can be interpreted differently, but so can most Scripture passages – the point is you can’t say there is ‘nothing’ that can point to Y’shua, – that just isn’t true.

            Nikola, here is the real crux of the matter (no pun intended); it is an issue of control and power. As long a Rabbinical Judaism is in control they will not recognize any Messiah who strips them of their power.

          • RT says:

            10th Man “While you have your calculator out, what are the odds of the Temple burning down twice on the 9th of Av?”

            100%, as G-d purposed it in the book of Daniel and clearly mentioned that it would happen. “Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.””

            But let me guess, you know G-d’s thought and it’s because the Jews rejected Jesus that the Temple was destroyed? Doesn’t that makes you think of all the other anti-Jewish ramble? It’s because that they rejected Jesus that they have been cursed, etc, etc. It never came to your mind that it could be for another reason that G-d chose to destroy the temple? Have you been fed so much missionary information that you forgot that your thinking might not be the truth?

          • Jim says:

            10th man,

            Regarding the holy spirit: You imply that one filled with the holy spirit is not infallible, and therefore, both one that worships Jesus as God and one that does not can both house the holy spirit. Leaving aside that you have not presented any method whereby one can know who is filled with the holy spirit, if you will be patient, I would like to explain why this reply does not satisfy.

            According to you, Christianity is meant to lead one into a relationship with God and the indwelling of the holy spirit. However, when you say that the holy spirit does not make one infallible, you imply that one who believes a man is God may be so indwelt. One must ask himself, what good is being filled with the holy spirit if it cannot lead you into a relationship with the correct Being? The efficacy of belief in Jesus must be minimal indeed if it leads one, not into a relationship with God, but with a man.

            The error that leads one to worship a man as God is not a small one. Indeed, the Torah is quite clear that one may worship God alone and that one is not to worship any created thing. (See Exodus 20 and Deut. 4). These things can be read without the aid of the holy spirit and are fundamental truths of the Torah.

            If, under the influence of the holy spirit, one cannot understand the most basic teachings of Torah, it would appear that one would be better off without its influence. This is indeed true, if believers in Jesus feel guided in their understanding of Torah by the holy spirit. Because it does not bring them to understand even the basic, clearly stated truths of Torah, then they cannot rely upon it to guide them in their understanding of Torah, whatsoever.

            When a Christian reads from Tanach, then, and he feels moved by the spirit to believe that a certain passage refers to Jesus, he would be better ignoring that feeling. If he cannot trust that spirit in the fundaments of Torah, then he cannot trust it in anything. In one way, it is correct to say that the holy spirit did not make the believer “infallible.” Indeed, it has inclined him to the grossest error. It has led him away from the truth.

            The term “infallible” is insufficient. It implies that the believer is prone to make the minor mistakes that come with being human. But these are not minor mistakes. The believer cannot properly identify what is not God, i.e. any created being. His devotion is misplaced. The purposed benefit of his belief is undermined. Not only have you not provided a way to know that you or anyone else is filled with the holy spirit, you have shown it to be an undesirable state.

            Jim

          • RT says:

            Jim, this is indeed really true what you said. The holy spirit does a really bad job by not showing such a basic teaching of the Torah. 10th man is stuck, regardless of what he said, because still the great majority of messianic believe in the trinity. So or he acknowledge that they are worshiping another god, or minimize the fact that the vast majority worship a man.

            Talking about the holy spirit, this could become a very dangerous subject, and indeed was used by many inconsiderate being in the past. Of course, when one has the Holy Spirit, it often lead them to believe that they hold the truth and can lead to persecution of those who don’t have the same view. I am in a way glad that 10th man believe that other can disagree and still be considered to worship the same god. I saw too often Christians who consider others heretics on minor inconsistency such as rapture times. It becomes dangerous, when you think you hold the truth because you believe you have the holy spirit…

          • 10th man says:

            Jim & RT,
            Apparently you think me stuck and indeed I would be stuck if I believed all the words you’re putting into my mouth.

            Apparently you both believe Christian sectarian dogma accurately reflects the teachings of Y’shua. Allow me to assure you that it doesn’t. For the same reasons you hold aberrant views of the Holy Spirit, therefore hopefully you will appreciate a little Holy Spirit 101. The Holy Spirit doesn’t make people all knowing, perfect and infallible. The Holy Spirit leaves a persons free will intact and in place. The Holy Spirit does not remove ones evil inclination but rather helps to rule over it. To help you truthfully understand; the Holy Spirit is an added nature to the natures already present in a person which helps them rule over these natures. The key word being “helps”. A person’s free will is still intact and in place and has the choice at every turn to be helped or to refuse help.

            The Holy Spirit is incredibly powerful if followed (just like Torah). But you cannot judge the Holy Spirit by all who claim it, but don’t accept its help any more than you can judge Torah by one who claims it but doesn’t follow it. To compound matters further when trying to discern such things; there are those (myself included) who try, but do not follow the Holy Spirit perfectly, therefore one could try to fault the Holy Spirit when it is really my fault for following poorly. (again the same can be said of those Torah observant).

            I know you are trying to tear me down with your words, but what I’ve given you here is the best pure honesty that I can – you have the choice to hear it or to refuse it.

          • Jim says:

            10th man,

            You will note that I put no words into your mouth. Nor did I appeal to Christian dogma. I have gone by only your terse comments on the matter. For that matter, I have not tried to tear you down. I have only sought a method whereby to evaluate your claims.

            I think you have introduced an interesting element into the conversation. According to you, the holy spirit may indwell one that cannot identify God and worships a member of creation. This is, according to you, not by the influence of the holy spirit but counter to it. Let us see what follows from this.

            When Christians resist the charge of Christian anti-Semitism, one of the arguments frequently put forward is that none of the persecutors of the Jewish people were real Christians. But, according to what you have written, this need not be the case. The holy spirit does not make one infallible, as you say, and which you have demonstrated to mean one may violate daily one of the major commands of the Torah. So, if one, why not another?

            I do not mean to say that the Christian that killed Jews did so under the guidance of the holy spirit. But the Christian does not follow the holy spirit properly, as you say. So, what we have is a man who is both an idolater and a murderer that is filled with the holy spirit. This man plays freely with the Torah to suit his own prejudice. His tongue is filled with venom, but his heart is filled with the holy spirit, which he sometimes ignores. All of those Christians that lied about the Jewish people, who destroyed their homes, and wracked their bodies are, indeed, now to be reckoned true Christians. They embody the modern Christian aphorism: “Christians aren’t perfect. They’re just forgiven.” No one will any longer dare not to call them true Christians. These are people that are filled with the holy spirit, but they are not infallible.

            So, one is left wondering again, what good does this holy spirit do? If it is supposed to help facilitate a relationship with HaShem, it does not seem to do very well at its job. It does not seem that one can have a close relationship to God while killing his children and worshiping human beings.

            One is left wondering also, how does one identify a spirit-filled individual? It is not because he has a greater understanding of HaShem’s Torah, for he can violate the basics and still be filled with the holy spirit. It is not for his great moral character: he can be a murderer, a thief, and a liar and still be filled with the holy spirit. Having these failings, he will say that it is not the spirit that does these things, but himself. And, while one may grant that, one is left wondering by what means he will determine who actually houses the holy spirit and who does not.

            One may be further troubled by this reality. One can observe two individuals, one that lives a good life devoted to HaShem and His Torah and another who is devoted to a man and his teachings and is careless about the Torah, both in his reading of it and his practice. Intuitively, if one had to guess which one was filled with the holy spirit, one would have thought the former. But, he does not believe in Jesus. He does not have the spirit. Indeed, many Christians will scoffingly call that man “religious,” while they have a “relationship” with God. No, the man filled with the spirit of God is the one that is careless of HaShem’s Torah and violates one of the most basic commandments of Torah. While it is not impossible that this is true, it does seem rather unlikely.

            Now, I never said that you claimed the holy spirit makes one infallible. However, one is not talking about making minor errors here. Christians—and perhaps this does not apply to you—often claim to be led in the spirit to perform a certain action or to understand a scripture in a certain way. If the holy spirit does not inform one not to worship a man, then it cannot be trusted to interpret scripture or take an action. Similarly, if one cannot tell the difference between the urging of the holy spirit and his own prejudice, then he cannot rely upon it to interpret scripture, etc., either.

            Your use of the word “infallible” is an abuse of the English language. Imagine if one claimed to have a spirit of mathematics, by which one did not mean that he was a perfect mathematician but that he had some spiritual help in that area. If he made a minor calculating error here or there, one might overlook that. One might say that, spirit of mathematics or not, the mathematician himself is still only human. However, if the mathematician does not know the difference between addition and multiplication, does not know what a square number or square root is, or any other basic mathematical principle, one is going to doubt the claim that he has a spirit of mathematics. If he shrugs and says that he is “infallible,” one will be right to say that infallibility is one thing but total ignorance and incompetence is something else entirely.

            It is easy to claim that in one resides the holy spirit, but it is difficult to show. So far, you have not demonstrated a means to identify a person with the holy spirit, nor what benefit it would serve to be indwelt with that spirit.

            Jim

          • Larryb says:

            10th man

            “”Apparently you both believe Christian sectarian dogma accurately reflects the teachings of Y’shua. Allow me to assure you that it doesn’t. For the same reasons you hold aberrant views of the Holy Spirit, therefore hopefully you will appreciate a little Holy Spirit 101. The Holy Spirit doesn’t make people all knowing, perfect and infallible. The Holy Spirit leaves a persons free will intact and in place. The Holy Spirit does not remove ones evil inclination but rather helps to rule over it. To help you truthfully understand; the Holy Spirit is an added nature to the natures already present in a person which helps them rule over these natures. The key word being “helps”. A person’s free will is still intact and in place and has the choice at every turn to be helped or to refuse help.
            The Holy Spirit is incredibly powerful if followed (just like Torah). But you cannot judge the Holy Spirit by all who claim it, but don’t accept its help any more than you can judge Torah by one who claims it but doesn’t follow it. To compound matters further when trying to discern such things; there are those (myself included) who try, but do not follow the Holy Spirit perfectly, therefore one could try to fault the Holy Spirit when it is really my fault for following poorly. (again the same can be said of those Torah observant).””

            . Even when I was a Christian I never quite understood the Holy Spirit. My first question you did not mention is there any mention anywhere in the Torah of the HS?
            Did the holy spirit come about after Jesus or was it always available to man both gentile and Israel alike? How does one acquire the Holy Spirit? How do you know if you have this added nature If one repents and changes their way? Do you have to believe in Jesus? You mention added nature. So it’s not a separate being as in part of the trinity, more of a helper that any can receive? Is it part of a trinity?

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            You mention that “Additionally there are Tanach passages that can be applied to Y’shua”……..Would you tell me what passages in Tanach do apply to Yeshua?

          • RT says:

            “The Holy Spirit does not remove ones evil inclination but rather helps to rule over it.”

            First, are you saying that those who don’t have the holy spirit like the Jews cannot rule over the evil inclination?

            Second, it’s all nice talks, but can you demonstrate that those with the HS can rule over their inclination?

            Can you demonstrate that:

            Only true follower of Jesus can rule over their evil inclination
            Those who don’t have the holy spirit cannot rule over their evil inclination?

            If not all Christian have the HS, how do you know if you have it or not, if Jews can follow Torah, Buddhist can live life that follow the teaching of Buddha and many atheist live exemplary lives (and not all do things in secret) how do you differentiate the one whit the HS and the one without?

            Claims without proofs are mere assumptions my friend. If you cannot see the HS, and you cannot see the acts of the HS, than how do you know if you have it or not, or even if any Christians have it? If you look the acts in general throughout the century, I would not say that many Christians really had the holy spirit. All Religion have good and bad people, Christianity is no exception. Nevertheless, looking at the average, you are not scoring the highest, this seems rather contradictory to your claim that Christians can control their evil inclination; and no other religion can…

          • 10th man says:

            Jim,
            “You will note that I put no words into your mouth.”

            —(then your very next paragraph you proceed to do it again)—
            “According to you, the holy spirit may indwell one that cannot identify God and worships a member of creation.”

            —(The rest of your post reveals just how weak your position really is. Any one who must resort to the most extreme bizarre examples to prove a point has a point not based in reality)—

            “So far, you have not demonstrated a means to identify a person with the Holy Spirit,”

            —(nor did I ever claim you could)—

            “nor what benefit it would serve to be indwelt with that spirit.”

            —(this I clearly outlined for you in the very comment you are answering. As I said it was your choice to hear or not – you’ve chosen to not and instead to misrepresent my words by using the most extreme examples imaginable in an attempt to discredit. Lastly declaring I haven’t answered you when I clearly have. I think further discussion with you will not be profitable for either of us, unless bringing confusion and frustrating me is counted as profitable to you)—

        • 10th man says:

          Nikola,
          I’m on a mountain approximately 10,000 feet, I’ve better phone service up here than at home! It’s getting dark and getting cold and my fingers are getting cold.

          Right away you have a number of insurmountable difficulties in the approach you’ve taken. First off is language, considering what you’ve quoted has gone from outdated Koine Greek to English (and some quotes started in septuagint; a translation from Hebrew) then you compare it to a modern English version of Hebrew which as been translated from outdated paleo Hebrew, given given the number of translations and possible anachronisms, it is just not feasible to apply the level of exactitude you are assuming.

          Secondly, the Talmud does the same thing in many places which you are complaining about in the Greek Scriptures – you are not applying equal measures.

          Thirdly, one has to account for possible editing, redactions and conflations of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

          Forthly, many of your quotes are much like people today who are immearsed enough in Scripture that it makes its way into their everyday speech – useing paraphrases, partial quotes, out of context parts of Scripture and applying them to everyday life. Then someone comes along later with a microscope imposing their own strict standards claiming it is proof of falseness.

          • Nikola says:

            Ah, 10th man, I thought you were better than an average missionary/messianic. I even used your favorite translation.

          • 10th man says:

            Sorry to disappoint you, but it is probably because you assumed I was a missionary/messianic. Yes, out of the multitude of versions I use, it is my favorite, not for its literalness but for its flavor.

        • Jim says:

          10th man,

          Please indulge one more inquiry into the holy spirit as you understand it. Let us perform a thought experiment together, and your answer will help me understand, I believe.

          Let us posit two men. We know somehow—it does not matter how—that one of them is filled with the holy spirit, but we do not know which one. It is our job to determine—it does not matter why—which of the two men is filled by the holy spirit.

          The two men are alike in most ways. They are good men that do not lie, cheat, or steal. They do not murder, commit adultery, or speak badly of others. The one major difference is that one worships HaShem and does not acknowledge Jesus. The other believes Jesus to be not only the Messiah, but God, and he worships him as such.

          Now, which one has the holy spirit, and why?

          I thank you in advance of your reply.

          Jim

          • 10th man says:

            Jim,
            “Please indulge one more inquiry into the holy spirit as you understand it.”

            —(I’m discerning your sincerity is lacking, but as I said before; I’m not beyond making mistakes, therefore I’ll entertain this one more attempt to paint me into a corner)—

            “Let us posit two men. We know somehow—it does not matter how—that one of them is filled with the holy spirit, but we do not know which one. It is our job to determine—”

            —(it is not our job to determine such things, you are asking us to step out of the realm of mankind and into the spiritual realm. What I can tell you is sometimes I see the Holy Spirit in people’s eyes and/or see a glow or brightness about them)—

            “The two men are alike in most ways.”

            —(you are correct; they are both mistaken)—

            “Now, which one has the holy spirit, and why?”

            —(if you are referring to the Holy Spirit Y’shua promised Hashem would send in his name to those who acknowledge him, then there is only one possible answer; the one who acknowledges Y’shua is the only one who has a chance of being filled with the Holy Spirit)—

          • Jim says:

            10th man,

            Thank you for your indulgence. I do not know why you think I wish to paint you into a corner. I would think that you would be happy to define concretely your understanding of the holy spirit. That you believe me to be insincere is of no interest to me and of no relevance to the topic. Because you said I did not understand your idea of the holy spirit, I looked for clarification, a way to take vague ideas and define them more clearly. Then, that idea can be critiqued properly and found to be either true or false—hopefully. (Sometimes a question remains unresolved.)

            But when I read your response, I see that it does not correct any notions I had. What you called misrepresentations and misunderstandings on my part are exactly what you hold. In your theology, if I may use that term, one that violates a fundamental commandment of the Torah and operates in violation of a fundamental principle may be filled with the holy spirit. On the other hand, one that lives a life faithful to HaShem is denied the holy spirit, if he does not believe in Jesus.

            Of course, you will once again respond that you did not claim that the holy spirit does not make one infallible, as if I said or implied it did. Errors come in many sizes, however, ranging from large to small. Idolatry is not a small error. It is not easily shrugged off with the excuse that one is not infallible.

            Please consider the following analogy: Let us compare two men, again. For this exercise, we shall posit a Spirit of Marriage, which we shall call SoM for the sake of brevity—and to save my fingers a little work. The SoM is supposed to be a gift to enable one to be that much more faithful and loving to his wife. The first man is totally faithful to his wife. The second carries on a lifelong affair with another woman. From what you have written, it is quite reasonable to say that the second man is the one gifted with the SoM. Though he has been unfaithful all his life long, it is he that has been endowed with a gift that brings him closer to his wife. Can anyone believe such a thing? It is quite unsatisfactory to explain that, even though he has been gifted with the SoM, he is less faithful than a man not so gifted, because the SoM did not make him infallible.

            Now, if I may shift gears a little. You wrote to Concerned Reader that true Christianity is transmitted through the holy spirit. This cannot be believed by a rational person, in light of what you have written. The holy spirit, transmitting its Christianity, cannot even enlighten its students to what was transmitted publicly 1,300 years or so before the holy spirit began transmitting its own message. It cannot enlighten the Christian to read and understand the Shema, the commandment not to worship anything other than HaShem, or that one should worship nothing in creation, because it does not make the Christian infallible. But, if it cannot accomplish even this much, then no message from the Christian is trustworthy, because it is never known whether or not he is receiving the transmission or corrupting one.

            Please reconsider this difficulty:
            Two men claim to be teaching Christianity as they received it from the holy spirit. One claims that Jesus is God. The other says he is not. I cannot see the glow of the holy spirit on others as you can, so I cannot differentiate between them that way. But, it does not matter, because you have said that they both might be filled with the holy spirit. So, let us assume you see the glow on both. I cannot know to whom to listen. I cannot even ask you, because I have no way of knowing that you actually see the glow on one or the other or both. And, since both may be indwelt, you would not be helpful in differentiating one from the other.

            Consider this as well:

            Let us take a Christian teacher that may be supposed to be filled with the holy spirit, someone like Dr. Michael Brown, for example. He teaches that Jesus is God, which is clearly incorrect. But, he is filled with the holy spirit, and he relies upon that spirit to guide him in his understanding of the scripture. So, he tells his audience that he was praying in the spirit over a passage with which he was having some difficulty, and, thankfully, the spirit showed him that the passage means such-and-such. By what method can I trust the the holy spirit showed him the meaning of the passage or anything else, for that matter? If he says that the holy spirit revealed to him that Jesus is God, I certainly cannot believe him on that front; the Torah directly contradicts such a teaching. How then can anyone trust any other message supposedly transmitted by the holy spirit?

            Certainly, you may say that Dr. Brown is fallible, and it is not the spirit that is wrong. But Dr. Brown’s message cannot be trusted, even when he claims it is from the holy spirit. Even if you were to verify for me that you heard the same thing from the holy spirit, I could not know if that were true, either.

            One last comparison:

            Two radios are on sale. One has a clear signal. The other pops in and out. It is highly garbled with moments of clarity, a greatly distorted signal. (They both operate on the same band and are set to the same frequency.) The salesman says that the second radio is better, because it has a certificate announcing its superior receptivity. It has a signal booster inside that brings a better clarity. “Sure, it will cut out now and then. The booster does not make the radio infallible, you understand. But it has a great advantage over the other radio.” It would be imprudent for one to deny what he hears coming out of the two radios and take the salesman’s pitch as truth. One does not ignore that the second radio lacks clarity, sales pitch or not, certificate or not.

            But this is what you have asked us to believe. You have asked us to believe that because the salesman, Jesus, promised a booster, the holy spirit, that the Christian receives a better transmission than others. But, this is clearly not the case. What comes from believers is a cacophony, a disagreement on even the most basic points. The holy spirit has done nothing to clarify the Christian message.

            When you write that the holy spirit is a benefit to the believers, I do not see it. I see that it cannot even transmit the message that had been previously transmitted. Indeed, you can furnish no evidence that such a spirit suffuses the believer. This, I would have to take on faiths, ignoring the failure of the believer to grasp fundamental Torah truths. Forgive my directness, but what you have presented is not reasonable.

            Jim

          • RT says:

            In all fairness, I think it is far to be clear who is Jesus and what kind of Devine nature that should be attributed to him in the new testament. If it is such a unclear line that was drawn in the NT, it would only be fair that the HS reveals who he is with clarity and how to be “saved” form an everlasting hell fire. This lack of clarity and the possible idolatry (severe offense from Torah) due to a misunderstanding of who Jesus is made me go away from that faith in the first place.

          • 10th man says:

            Jim,
            “I wish to paint you into a corner. I would think that you would be happy to define concretely your understanding of the holy spirit”

            —(the Holy Spirit cannot be defined, I’ve given you my honest albeit limited understanding yet you still don’t understand the obvious expected vagueness – what are you expecting?)—

            “Idolatry is not a small error.”

            —(lumping everyone into the idolatry category who believes in Y’shua makes it easy for you, but it doesn’t make it true. Although I am not a trinitarian at least I understand how they view Jesus as God, or better said how they view God in Jesus. If you are looking for a reason to divide and reject others not the same as you, even though they love Hashem as you, then I suppose it’s a good a reason as any)—

  38. Concerned Reader says:

    I would have divorced many times unless Yeshua reinforced the SPIRIT of the Torah to reveal the solemness of the marriage covenant.

    The point Gean, is that it was G-d himself who allowed divorce. It wasn’t from the mouth of Moses as Yeshua claimed it was. Yeshua claimed that “Moses allowed it because of the hardness of your hearts.” The commandment comes from Hashem though, not Moses.

    Also, the Christian interpretation that says Divorce is just a leniency granted by Moses because of hard hearts, but not allowed by Hashem has had disastrous consequences to real peoples lives.

    Many religious Christian women have found themselves in abusive marriages, and yet the Church (at least in the 30s, 30s, 50’s and 60s,) was hard pressed to ever grant a divorce, even if a divorce was a necessary thing.

    So, with all respect to your belief system, we have here a bonafide example of Yeshua adding to the law, and examples of this addition having negative impacts.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      Gean Guk Gean did you see the letter I wrote for you above?

      If you didn’t here it is again.

      A Letter To Gean Guk Gean

      Gean Guk Gean, you are right that a person can read the New Testament books in such a way that those books might suggest that Jesus’ being rejected by the people and leaders was “all part of G-d’s plan,” and so ideally nobody should be seen as at fault or blamed for the fact that Jesus died, if that was supposed to happen. As Jesus said “forgive them father for they know not what they do.”

      I, like yourself used to read the New Testament that way, I thought that was the natural reading. I used to see it that way (I still do think that was the intent of at least some of the authors,) until I realized something.

      Kavi’s response unfortunately, (the belief that all Jews are deaf and blind sinners damned for eternity,) is the historic prevailing Christian understanding of the role and fate of the Jewish people as they exist now in Christian salvation history, regardless of the denomination.

      They are blamed and mocked and ridiculed, and were for centuries killed, for holding on to the pre Christian understanding of the Torah.

      Volumes of literature have been written over the course of centuries where Jews are labeled Christ murderers who are guilty of deicide, and they are guilty until the end of time.

      An entire genre of literature exists in all denominations of Christianity where the Jewish people are routunely vilified in this horrific manner.

      Even if the intent of the NT was to say that Jesus dying was part of G-d’s will and it was nobody’s fault, that is not how the Churches ever read or interpret the New Testament. It never has been read or applied the way you are reading it.

      This whole problem explains why the Christian approach to redemption doesn’t work. It cant produce the results that good Christians would like it to.

      What do I mean by a problem? In Christian theology G-d is said to be love itself. The death of Jesus is seen as the ultimate expression of G-d’s love for humans, Jesus is said to be the word of G-d itself, G-d’s essence dying.

      The problem with this picture might not at 1st be apparent to you, but please focus on what I write below.

      If Jesus dying was indeed G-d’s ultimate expression of love, even the essence of love, you cannot escape the fact that real people will be blamed and dehumanized for causing the death of love itself.

      (I realize that the intent of the New Testament authors is to say that Jesus’ death covers the sins of everyone who kneels to him and follows sincerely, and that this is love,)
      but this has the very real side effect that anyone who has a question, a reservation, or a doubt about Jesus’ claims or qualifications, becomes complicit in the death of love itself.

      And Christians manifest real hatred of such people, even when the book tells them not to.
      Let that sink in.

      The Church blithely asks Christians to “love your enemy,” IE to love the ones who the New Testament says were complicit in Christ’s death. It doesn’t tell you as a believer in Jesus how to be effectively caring or loving to an enemy well enough or clear enough, it just demands that you do it.

      The Christian narrative demands something that is next to impossible for humans to actually live out, especially when it directly conflicts with a person’s sense of justice or fairness.

      We see this all the time when a Christian asks “what if Hitler Genuinely said he loves Jesus?” “would G-d forgive his life of evil without justice for his victims?”

      Do you see how repugnant that question is? How can a verbal confession of a name absolve Hitler of killing millions of people who did nothing to deserve death? Its disturbing. It inspires outrage not peace.

      Look at the Orthodox Christian history of persecuting its various percieved heretical groups like Seventh Day Adventists or Mormons.

      When was the last time you saw an Evangelical invite a Mormon in for a cup of Coffee, and a chat in brotherhood and peace?

      It doesn’t happen! Why? Because Christians do not want to love a heretic. They see a heretic as deserving of punishment and wrath. Look at the Church’s treatment of Judas iscariot.

      Read the commentaries. He’s not regarded as saved.

      The one guy who needs Jesus’ forgiveness the most according to Christianity would be Judas Iscariot, and he does not recieve mercy, even if that was the gospel writer’s intention.

      Read literally any Christian commentary. You will find that either he is consigned to hell by the commentators, or they say “I’m not sure what happens to Judas.”

      The Christian Bible sticks its believers into a situation where they always have to wonder, “is so and so truly saved?” “Is he truly partaking of the holy spirit?” “If I have doubts, but I need to love Christ or go to hell, do I have free will?”

      The truth is that nobody knows, but Humans like you and Kavi, are out to make sure that others believe in Jesus “just to be safe.”
      The worst part is that you cannot avoid a terrible reaction like Kavi’s. You cant escape his description of Jews as horrible sinners.
      The New Testament portrays Judaism’s leaders as serpents, white washed hypocrites who do not know G-d, or love him. Its very hard then to get real humans to love someone truly and sincerely when you paint that awful picture of them.

      • Brother CR, i know and understand all the criticism from your real concerns of the Christian theology. The Christians must repent and i repent continuously. So, brother, why don’t we stop going back to what ignorant Christians have interpreted and done; rather going back to what the N.T. has really taught? Where are those who are really concerned about the healing of the Jews and Chrisitans? Who will find the God’s wisdom and soverignty through the history of the people of God who call on the name of the Lord? I am sick of hearing what men have done to the Jews. I want to hear what God has done to them.

        • 10th man says:

          “So, brother, why don’t we stop going back to what ignorant Christians have interpreted and done; rather going back to what the N.T. has really taught? ”
          Gean Guk Jeon

          —(x2!)—

          • Concerned Reader says:

            If the millions of past and present Christians who read the New Testament text in that way are ignorant and irrelevant, why should we trust the opinions of the likes of you and Gean 10th man?

            If Christians in the 2nd 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries misconstued Jesus’ teaching so thoroughly, why should we trust a reconstruction of an admittedly polluted legacy?

            If Polycarp, Justin, Origen, and Eusebius, all interpreted Jesus’ teachings to mean that the Torah was old and passing away, or that Jews were awful, why should we trust the testimony of those so far removed from Jesus’ disciples?

          • 10th man says:

            Concerned Reader,
            I can’t speak for Gean, but I’d think he would agree; it doesn’t matter what the millions out out of the billions of Christians believe or what the early Church fathers thought and taught, what matters is the teaching of Y’shua. To judge any other way is to judge by hearsay.

    • 10th man says:

      “is that it was G-d himself who allowed divorce. It wasn’t from the mouth of Moses as Yeshua claimed it was.”

      Is this statement provable?

      • Concerned Reader says:

        That depends 10th man on if you trust the text of the Torah. The Torah allows divorce.

        Is Jesus’ claim proveable?

        • 10th man says:

          Exactly

          • LarryB says:

            10th man
            What would you need as proof of the Torah?

          • 10th man says:

            The Original Autograph – the one Moses penned. Which brings up another point – where is the original Contract which was chiseled in stone? The fact that Israel lost its original contract in a world where Hashem is sovereign kinda says something wouldn’t you agree?

          • LarryB says:

            10th man
            Original Autograph? Surely you mean something else.

          • LarryB says:

            10th man
            No I cannot agree. I’m sensing an Athiest. Anyone who want the 10 commandments written in the original stone tablets clearly is an Athiest. Jesus is your cover. You almost had me going there.

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB, nope, I’m no atheist, but thanks for the good laugh 😂!

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            If your not an Athiest, 1. what is your belief? 2. Do you worship Jesus? I went to the website you pointed to and that guy worships Jesus.

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB
            You’ll need to define “worship” so that we can compare apples to apples.

            As for that website, I know nothing of “that guy” other than he doesn’t buy into mainstream Christian dogma. As you hopefully remember, I specifically denied any blanket endorsement of the website. I only provided it because you asked for something and it was the best I could do, I wasn’t even sure if it still existed. There is a good book – something about Jesus being a Jewish Rabbi, last I remember the author has passed away and the book out of print. Sorry I can’t be more helpful in this area

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            If your not an Athiest How about question number 1? I asked for a website so I could read and get an idea of your belief. You mentioned another bible for me to read yet now I get the feeling that you wouldn’t agree with it either, so why would I read it? You don’t agree with Christianity as most people do and neither do I. That’s why I left. Most people here would agree with you on that. The idea of studying only what Jesus taught is not new. I’ve read what he supposedly said, he thought he was god. He was an Athiest.

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB
            Being a god (little g as in a Ben Elohim) is a supportable speculation I’ve heard before, but Y’shua an Athiest, haha, that’s a new one, care to explain how you come to such a conclusion?

            Btw, I don’t disagree with the Bible translation I suggested, but like the rest of the Bible (Torah included) it has to be read for what it is; an ancient text .

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            Funny we kinda of swerved into this point of the conversation. You have a bible we can use finally after 2000 years. There is a rabbi, Lawrence Kelemen he has a video “rational approach to the Devine origin of Judaism” over at simple to remember dot com.

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB,
            That’s rather unfair since we are discussing a “translation” rather than the Bible. Which brings up a good point; we have the Greek Scriptures in their original languages but we don’t have the Hebrew Scriptures in their original language.

          • 10th man why would you say that about the Hebrew Scriptures? Didn’t Moses speak and write Hebrew? – btw – do you know what language Jesus spoke?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            And we now have scriptures in your approved translation.

          • Larryb says:

            Sorry, it’s the iPad fault. The video cover this quite well.

    • Brother CR, Yes, the commandment about the divorce comes from Hashem, but it is from the mouth of Moses as Yeshua claimed; trace back to Deut.8:1 “Every commandment that I command you this day you shall keep to do,” and verse 11 “Beware that you do not forget the Lord, your God, by not keeping His commandments, His ordinances, and His statutes, which I command you this day,” Who is “I” in these two verses?

      I agree that many Christian women suffer from the abusive husbands because of the Yeshua’s teaching; but in fact, there are much more Christian women who escape the bond of marriage because of the “freedom from the law” theology. Also, there are so many women in Judaism and Christianity who endure the marriage in spite of poverty,violence, and alcoholism and disciple their husbands in the patience of God. It seems that they know how to win their ruler- husband: “The Ruler is won over with slowness to anger, and a gentle tongue will break a bone.” (Prov.25:15) It seems that They know how to avenge their husbands; “.If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will be scooping coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you. ” (Prov.25:21-22).

      • Concerned Reader says:

        I agree that many Christian women suffer from the abusive husbands because of the Yeshua’s teaching; but in fact, there are much more Christian women who escape the bond of marriage because of the “freedom from the law” theology.

        Gean, my whole point was that Jesus’ rules about divorce are stricter than the Torah’s rules, so “freedom from the law theology” is actually a bad thing in this case.

  39. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, if you dont trust the Torah text for what it says plainly in Deuteronomy about Divorce, how can you decide what means what, or what is true in the text?

    • 10th man says:

      Sparingly apply a little textual criticism so as not to hold the Ancient Text to a level of accuracy which cannot be proved.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        If you cant trust that Deuteronomy states plainly that a divorce is ok in Jewish law, and that Jesus makes a change, then textual criticism doesnt help.

        10th man, We know from Josephus, the Targumim, and from the rabbinic corpus, along with the reference already established in Deuteronomy that divorce was acceptable in the law of Moses.

        Jesus equated divorce with adultery in terms of its severity of sin, which the Torah never does.

        We already know that the Church’s application of Jesus’ interpretation has had unforseen negative impact.

        You mentioned the Septuagint. Are you aware that all modern Septuagint texts are Christian in their chain of transmission?

        The alleged 70 translators who translated into Greek, only translated the Pentateuch, not the prophets, or the writings. So, the Septuagint so called, today reflects a Christian rescension of the texts.

        • 10th man says:

          “We know from Josephus, the Targumim, and from the rabbinic corpus, along with the reference already established in Deuteronomy that divorce was acceptable in the law of Moses.”

          —(we only know from Nehemiah and Ezra, – and I’m being generous)—

          “Jesus equated divorce with adultery in terms of its severity of sin, which the Torah never does”

          —(Y’shua was perfectly within his rights to interpret Torah concerning divorce as he did)—

          “You mentioned the Septuagint. Are you aware that all modern Septuagint texts are Christian in their chain of transmission?”

          —(I believe you are mistaken if I’m understanding you correctly – yes I’m aware the one done in Egypt was just the first five. As for quoted translated Hebrew Texts in the Greek Scriptures, yes the barely the majority come from a modern ‘ septuagint’ but not all.)—

  40. Concerned Reader says:

    The Original Autograph – the one Moses penned. Which brings up another point – where is the original Contract which was chiseled in stone?

    Hahaha original autographs? Good one. You don’t have those for your Greek Testament either, not by a long shot, so why believe it?

    The letters of Paul are the oldest texts in the New Testament Corpus, and that’s the 50s CE (to be generous.) so much for using the red letters to determine what Jesus actually said.

    If we go off of the documentary hypothesis, and the idea that the Torah was only officially edited together in the time of Ezra, that still puts Judaism in a far better situation than the Greek Testament. Why?

    Because, before Jesus existed, we know that the Jewish people had a collective story. Part of that story is a law, and part of that law is the permission to divorce under certain circumstances. We also have multiple attestation of divorce being practiced in the halacha of different sects of Jews.

    As I said, Josephus even mentions a midrash (that must have been heard during his day) that Moses was married to an Ethiopian princess, before marrying Tzipporah. IE there is argument whether Moses only married once or twice. I’m pretty sure this story is in the rabbinic corpus as well.

    Why would this be the case if the Jewish people’s mythology knew nothing of divorce as an acceptable practice?

    —(Y’shua was perfectly within his rights to interpret Torah concerning divorce as he did)—

    Not if he changes the laws he isn’t. Sorry 🙂

    LarryB, I don’t think 10th man is an atheist. If he were an atheist, his arguments would be a lot better. If he’s trolling, hes not good at it.

    • 10th man says:

      “You don’t have those for your Greek Testament either,”

      —(is it wrong to insust on equal standards of measurement?)—

      “The letters of Paul are the oldest texts in the New Testament Corpus, and that’s the 50s CE (to be generous.) so much for using the red letters to determine what Jesus actually said.”

      —(not so fast, I never said or implied the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can’t be trusted (including Y’shuas teaching) only that the exactitude others are demanding is not reasonable given the history of these texts)—

      ” we know that the Jewish people had a collective story”

      —(to be honest; we only know what the Babylonian rabbis have told us to know)—

      “Not if he changes the laws he isn’t. Sorry 🙂”

      —(the point is; considering these “laws” were definitely translated from paleo hebrew and most likely edited long after Moses and an exile and that the Greek Scriptures suffer from similar situations it is unreasonable to apply enough precision to the texts to warrant a full scale rejection of Y’shua based solely on a teaching concerning divorce)—

      Btw, thank you for identifying me as ‘not a troll’ 👍

      • Concerned Reader says:

        10th man, thats why you look for multiple attestation in the sources.

        I dont reject Jesus’ messiahship based on his teaching on divorce. All that was requested was an area where Jesus amended Torah. I provided one.

        If you want to know why I dont believe, read the other posts of mine here on the blog. Just place my screen name in the search bar.

        • 10th man says:

          “All that was requested was an area where Jesus amended Torah. I provided one.”

          —(I don’t believe I requested such, but if you are going to reject every amendment to Torah going going to have to reject the Talmud)—

          • Concerned Reader says:

            10th man, the Talmud does not ask me to trust one man (or even a handful of men) for my eternity or salvation. Talmud is a guide, not a dogma. Thats why its full of opinions that differ, and full of halachic issues that are not resolved.

            The rabbis have the authority to teach men about how to observe a commandment.

            The Christian scriptures tell us about the authorities of Christianity who should be recieved as if it were Christ himself.

            The rabbis are aware that they are lay leaders.

            The history of Christendom a direct contrast that is full of Popes, Patriarchs, and priests who expect their flock to have faith in them as Christ’s representatives.

          • 10th man says:

            “The Christian scriptures tell us about the authorities of Christianity who should be recieved as if it were Christ himself.”

            —(Concerned Reader, you’ve been terribly misinformed, Y’shua taught the exact opposite of what you are saying)—

            “The rabbis are aware that they are lay leaders.”

            —(this is very misleading; rabbis (teachers) claim only they have the authority to interpret Scripture correctly – Imho, much like the Catholic Church does)–

  41. Concerned Reader says:

    I am sick of hearing what men have done to the Jews. I want to hear what God has done to them.

    Gean, G-d always acts through men, and through their free choices. This is what scripture means to teach us about when it mentions free will, and being made in the image of G-d.

    When you say “i am sick of hearing what men have done to the Jews,” you open the floodgates to allow horrible things to happen again.

    The Holocoust only happened 72 years ago. 1 generation ago. My grandfather (A WWII Veteran) passed only a few years back. Heaven forbid that we should forget what happened 1 generation ago.

    10th man also said that we should not “dig up past sins,” but that misses the whole point of learning to combat a sinful impulse.

    We dont talk about what men have done to dredge up negativity, or blame, but as a rememberance of what not to do again.

    Christians often say “he said he was sorry, so lets move on and forget it.”

    To forget is to ask for a second fall. Christianity has apologized a lot, but it hasn’t learned the true meaning of Teshuvah. Teshuvah is not just a turn from sin, but a turn from yourself.

    I often hear people say about the suffering of others “its not my problem, I didn’t cause x, its not my responsibility to fix it.”

    Its that old addage of Cain “am I my brother’s keeper?

    Gean, the greatest deception offerrd by a struggle, a sin, or an addiction is the belief thatyou have kicked it.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      Consider the irony of the fact that you seem to be calling me out for accepting the Talmud.

      When you 1st came here to visit, you tried to use the Talmud as a source of corroboration for claims made about Jesus.

      I dont accept Talmud without Skepticism. I dont believe in every rabbi’s theological musings as fit to establish a doctrine.

      By contrast, If I look at the sheer number of Christians who view end times speculations from various pastors as ironclad prophecy, it becomes clearer who is resting on a shakier foundation.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader
      “10th man also said that we should not “dig up past sins,” but that misses the whole point of learning to combat a sinful impulse.”

      —(actually, Scripture teaches not to dig up the past sins of others. Scripture does not teach to dig up past sins of others to learn how to combat sinful impulses)—

      “the greatest deception offerrd by a struggle, a sin, or an addiction is the belief thatyou have kicked it.”

      —(so are you saying Christians are addicted to persecuting Jews and the only reason they are not currently is because they are deceived?)—

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      “Consider the irony of the fact that you seem to be calling me out for accepting the Talmud.”

      —(Not at all, but I am calling you out on using different standards of measurements to measure Scripture passages solely dependent on it being from the Hebrew text or the Greek text – in other words I’m calling you out on using a double standard)—

      • Concerned Reader says:

        10th man, you only accuse me of a double standard because you have not read the countless posts (still on this blog) where I argued strenuously for Jesus.

        Im not impressed by your position not because I haven’r heard it, but because I have argued from your view before.

        If I read works that present Jesus as pro Torah, or works that seek to justify Christian scripture usage “from an unbiased Jewish perspective,” scholars still look to the rabbis as a frame of reference because they represent the only living observant community.

        For example, people often compare the halachot of Yeshua to those of Hillel, and yet they change the subject, or declare rabbis in the wrong when the two dont match up.

        • 10th man says:

          Concerned Reader,

          “Im not impressed by your position not because I haven’r heard it, but because I have argued from your view before.”

          —(then you ought to be easily able to present the material that changed your view, with respect, you’ve yet to show me anything to cause me to question)—

          “scholars still look to the rabbis as a frame of reference”

          —(as do I)—

          “For example, people often compare the halachot of Yeshua to those of Hillel, and yet they change the subject, or declare rabbis in the wrong when the two dont match up.”

          —(what is wrong with that? When things don’t line up you usually have to declare somebody wrong. Are you saying it is the rabbis who are always right?)—

    • Brother CR, which will prevent Holocaust from happening again? Repeating of what year the Holocaust happened and how many people died because of whom? Or, clarifying the real message of the NT from which Christians have been veiled for many centuries? Odd thing is when i interpreted the NT as it is, which talks about God’s wisdom and secret plan to bring salvation to the world by using both Yeshua and the Jews, you were the only one who brought the antichristianism again. If other Jewish brothers or sisters whose parents and relatives were the real victims confront me with the history of antisemitism, i will be humbled and repentant, but why are you so excited to share something which is irrelavant to you? You are not a Christian nor a Jew, are you? Let us see if it will be ME who will open the floodgates of violence again or YOU who will open it.
      ” He who conceals transgression seeks love, but he who harps on a matter alienates the Lord.” Proverbs 17:9

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Gean, I was raised Christian. I was Baptized at seven years old and attended Church regularly, along with getting a university education in History and Comparitive religion.

        Jewish readers on this blog could bring up the very same things that I have brought up to you and 10th man, but they are letting me mention it for a reason, I believe.

        The reason is that When I first came to the blog, I had a prespective of Yeshua that is very similar to yours.

        I also thought it was a negative thing to bring up what you call “the errors and past sins of Christianity.” I also, like you, thought we should focus on healing.

        I had what I felt was a straighrforward plain sense reading of Jesus’ teachings.

        I also thought we could uncover a pro Torah message of the Nazarene, just as you believe.

        I realized that there is a problem with this approach though.

        In order to put forward the reading of Yeshua that you feel is accurate, you end up ignoring how the majority of Christians have read and understood Jesus from the earliest times in Christian history. You paint the majority who still read the book that way as itrekevant. That is dangerous.

        You and I tried to read a pro Torah Yeshua, but the historical truth is that nobody who looked to the New Testament for inspiration centuries before us got that message.

        As little as 100 years after Yeshua left, the people who preserved and transmitted the gospels to us looked down on Torah, and looked down on Jews.

        I saw my pro Torah reading of Jesus as “true” just as you see your reading of Yeshua as true Gean. The problem is, barely anyone reads the books that way.

        If Justin Martyr couldnt understand Jesus to be pro Torah like we did only 100 years after he was gone, how can I trust my reconstruction?

        Also Gean, if Jesus’ message was the Torah, why do we need him as a middleman, or an object of faith or devotion when we already have the Torah?

        The Torah tells me all by itself that G-d is my father, and that his Torah is a covenant of love.

        The Torah tells me by itself that I as a gentile can be loved by G-d while being a gentile.

        The Torah in the story of Noah and Jonah tells me that G-d is no respecter of persons, and that he looks to the righteous of character in each nation with graciousness.

        I dont reject Jesus because I have a problem with him. I do not follow Jesus, because I already have the Torah, and our Jewish brothers and sisters are not deficient without him.

        They already know about Hasgem.

        If Jesus added to the Torah, then he is a false teacher according to that same Torah.

        If Jesus merely established what was already true in the Torah, then recognition of his person becomes irrelevant. Does that make sense?

        Let the message, and not the man, be your memorial.

        • Brother CR, i want to say first of all that i am amazed and humbled to see how calm you are to my seemingly aggressive tone. Please forgive me.

          The Torah is mainly for the Jews, you know it. The covenant for the descendants of Abraham, Isacc and Jacob and hesed love of God toward the Jews seems to me “unconditional” and “unilateral” and “unbreakable” but when entering into a Mosaic covenant , it seems to be “conditional” “mutual” and “breakable.” How can we reconcile with this dilemma? Many covenant people throughout the history of Tanakh broke it by committing sins and disobeying the Torah. Then the “eternal and everlasting” covenant is broken and cursed?

        • And they are cursed so that salvation belong to men?
          Isnt it contrary to the Hebrew Bible?
          “With loving kindness and truth will iniquity be expiated and through fear of the Lord turn away from evil”(Prov. 16:6)

          Isn’t God able to keep what he said (justice) and at the same time forgive those covenant breakers (love)? Wasn’t the righteousness of God displayed on the cross?

          • Dina says:

            Gean, what are you talking about? The Torah does not teach that if you break a law you broke the covenant. The Torah teaches that if you break a law you will be punished, but also teaches that God will accept your repentance.

            Gean, I have to admit, I can’t understand why you’re asking the same questions over and over when we’ve presented you with Scriptures time after time that flat-out refute the idea that someone had to die in order for us to be forgiven for our sins.

            Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 18; Ezekiel 33; 1 Kings 8:46-60

          • Sister Dina, i am so sorry to repeat frustrating. I just want to know and learn the truth. Please persevere with Christians who need to know the God of Israel.

            “The Torah teaches that if you
            break a law you will be punished” Simple but eye- opening to me! And i searched a key word “covenant” and found two cases in which breaking covenant is possible- Genesis 17:14 , Leviticus 26:15
            My problem is that one is Abrahamic and the other is Mosaic. This refute my belief that Abrahamic covenant is unbreakable and maybe your belief that breaking a law does not break the covenant, too?

          • Sister Dina, if you have time, please check also Leviticus 26:40~45.
            Especially verse 42 and 45 seem to differentiate the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which will be considered in the divine favor from the Mosaic covenant which is “possible to be annulled?”

        • Dina says:

          Well said, Con! Great comments.

        • 10th man says:

          Concerned Reader,
          Hope you won’t mind the interjection, but considering the content, it is hard to resist.

          “I also thought it was a negative thing to bring up what you call “the errors and past sins of Christianity.” I also, like you, thought we should focus on healing.”

          —(you were right in the beginning)—

          “You and I tried to read a pro Torah Yeshua, but the historical truth is that nobody who looked to the New Testament for inspiration centuries before us got that message.”

          —(this is demonstrably false, with your education, had you stop to think about it you’d remember some Christian sects being pro Torah and some Rabbis declaring Y’shua a Torah teacher, granted far and few, but Gean you and I are hardly the only ones to recognize Y’shua as a Torah observant Jewish teacher)—

          “Also Gean, if Jesus’ message was the Torah, why do we need him as a middleman, or an object of faith or devotion when we already have the Torah?”

          —(now we finally get to a point of paramount importance! Y’shua corrected a Jewish religious system that had run off course, the religious leaders obviously did not like to be corrected, nor do they today – It was a issue of control back then and it is still today)—

          The Torah tells me all by itself that G-d is my father, and that his Torah is a covenant of love.

          —(this is not entirely true, because the Rabbis will tell you; you cannot keep this covenant of love without them telling you how to interpret Torah and how to keep it. “Torah….all by itself” is the antithesis of Rabbinical Judaism)—

          “I dont reject Jesus because I have a problem with him. I do not follow Jesus, because I already have the Torah, and our Jewish brothers and sisters are not deficient without him.”

          —(really? Out of all the Jewish brothers and sisters I know the only ones I’ve seen filled with the Holy Spirit were believers in Y’shua)—

          “If Jesus added to the Torah, then he is a false teacher according to that same Torah.”

          —(this statement is wearisome; when Y’shua teaches it is called adding when the Talmud teaches it’s called interpretation)—

          “If Jesus merely established what was already true in the Torah, then recognition of his person becomes irrelevant. Does that make sense?”

          —(The problem is Y’shua isn’t just establishing Torah but establishing what used to be true before it was corrupted between the first and second Temples, even today his message of a revived simple Torah is in direct contradiction with modern complicated Orthodox Judaism)—

          • Brother 10th man, I do believe your statement is so right: “Y’shua corrected a Jewish religious system that had run off course, the religious leaders obviously did not like to be corrected, nor do they today – It was a issue of control back then and it is still today”
            Many Christians and the Jews alike misunderstand that Yeshua attacked their being of Pharrisees and Saducess, no! He rebuked their outer religious activities which lack of doing the justice and mercy to obey the Torah. Now, let me share two more things which i believe you will agree with. First, Those religious leaders are reviving in the modern day Christian churches, too. They are putting denominational doctrines and traditions above the word of God! They are in control of interpretation of the Scriptures and practices of the congregations, and any revelations or unique interpretations are not welcomed but regarded as heretic. They actually hinder the ministry of the Spirit.

            Second, the Spirit of God is not imparted at the moment of believing in Yeshua; it has already been installed in the Jewish people (Isaiah 59:21). Yehosua and David, Daniel and Joseph, Moses and prophets and many rigteous people were the ones who were FULL of the Spirit. it is not matter of absence or presence of the Spirit; it is a matter of filling up or just indwelling of the Spirit. Pentecost is not the BIRTH of the church, it is the REVIVAL of the church (the ecclesia is the Jews who were called first among the nations at that time whether they believe or not; in all the epistle of the N.T., the word “saints- hassidim” denote the Jews and “faithful ones in Yeshua” means ‘those gentiles who put faith in Yeshua.’) In this sense, “HOLY” means “sactifying” of the Spirit upon the Jewish people who gathered in Yerushalaim at Pentecost. So they lived really holy life according to the Torah.
            Romans 8:5- 7″For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” So, i believe the sign of indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not believing in Yeshua but LIVING (Bearing fruits) and SUBMITING to God’s LAW.

          • 10th man says:

            Gean,
            I do agree; the Christian Church has repeated the same mistakes as Judaism – ‘being large and in charge’, perhaps because they are both filled with humans with evil inclinations.

            You’ve brought up a very very good point that most people miss or fail to understand, (especially here); the Holy Spirit isn’t a ‘one time for all time’ filling but a daily filling, just as one eats food for their body or puts gas in a car. This is why the Holy Spirit gets a bad reputation among unbelievers: there are people running around claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit doing the most atrocious things, sure they might have been filled at one time, (or tasted) but they are empty now. I believe Hashem designed it this way to keep us dependent and in relationship with Him – as it should be, – although my independent lazy self would of preferred the one time for all time filling – praise Hashem for knowing and giving us not a always what we want, but what is best.

          • RT says:

            Your assumption that Yeshua corrected a Jewish religious system needs to be proven.

            First, you need to have evidences that Yeshua was in the Hebrew Bible (as his new religious system needs a belief in a man for remission of sin)

            Second, You need to prove that Jesus corrected religion is actually better than the Jewish Religious system.

  42. Concerned Reader says:

    you’ve been terribly misinformed, Y’shua taught the exact opposite of what you are saying)

    Then centuries of the majority of your faith’s interpreters and even the reformers made that same mistake 10th man.

    Do you see the problem with your approach?

    If I have to ignore the Catholics, the Eastern Orthidox, and the myriad other Christians who read the text that way, then there is nothing left or recognizeable of your religion beyond Tenth man’s opinion of how I need to read the text.

    Once again, read the other posts ive written on the blog.

    If I have to find a Unicirn Christian in order to understand Jesus’ true itent, then maybe the teaching isnt reliable or at best its unclear? Its the simplest explanation

    Are today’s Jews actually Jews in your opinion 10th man?

    To me, Jews understand the Torah’s native language and grammar.

    Jews understand references to people, places, and events from the Tanakh, because its their history and culture.

    If I want to know how to observe the Sabbath, Hannukah, or passover, the greek scriptures provide few details or help. I need to find a rabbi to learn how.

    Even if I’m a Christian who
    Is trying to see if belief in Jesus is consistent with Torah, I have to scour tons of Jewish sources to see if he can fit.

    -Christians scour Josephus, the Appocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmuds etc. To try and fit Jesus.

    (these are all sources that Christians claim have no authority over them, and yet, Christians still try to employ them all the time.)

    Respectfully, if the rabbis (Jews) who have the understanding of the native language and cultural references are not the right folks to ask how to interpret the Torah properly, how can gentiles be appropriate?

    Why must you comb through their corpus for references?

    Even when Christians question the rabbinic scholar’s credentials to interpret Torah, they still pour over their booka to bolster the case for Jesus.

    The rabbis think their views are relevant because, they are the only Jews who are alive, identifiable as Jews, and observant enough of Torah to ask questions of, and to provide explanations, whether to Christians or non Christians.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,

      “Then centuries of the majority of your faith’s interpreters and even the reformers made that same mistake 10th man.”

      —(yes they did, but that still doesn’t change the simple fact it was not in accord with the teachings of Y’shua)—

      “Do you see the problem with your approach?”

      —(respectfully, I don’t think I’m the one here with a problem with approach)—

      “If I have to ignore the Catholics, the Eastern Orthidox, and the myriad other Christians who read the text that way,”

      —(yes you do, and yes you should – if it is not in accord with the teaching of Y’shua, it should be ignored)—

      “If I have to find a Unicirn Christian in order to understand Jesus’ true itent,”

      —(did it ever occur to you to read Y’shua’s words for yourself, asking Hashem to guide you into all truth, applying some textual criticism and historical cultural context?)—

      “Are today’s Jews actually Jews in your opinion 10th man?”

      —(The Jewish religious system has gone through drastic changes from Abraham to Moses, then from Moses to Ezra/Nehemiah, from them through numerous power struggles and divisions into sects to the second temple period and finally the second exile until now. The King/Priest religious system has been replaced with Rabbinical Judaism. Therefore to answer your question; today’s Jews are no more real Jews than today’s Roman/Greek/Coptic Church’s are real Christians – not that they don’t have value, but they all seek to control a religious system interjecting themselves as sole mediators between Hashem and man – it’s an age old power struggle. Things have never been right since the Babylonian exile)—

      “If I want to know how to observe the Sabbath, Hannukah, or passover, the greek scriptures provide few details or help. I need to find a rabbi to learn how.”

      —(did it ever occur to you to read the Hebrew Scriptures, asking Hashem to guide you into all truth, applying some textual criticism and historical cultural context? rabbis have their place, but they are not the final authority nor are they the sole mediators between Hashem and man.
      Speaking of the Sabbath – if you could get a rabbi to be honest with you, you’d find today’s approach to Sabbath observance is merely a compromise of the truth, a bandaid until Messiah comes to put things right – it is not the Sabbath ancient Jews kept)—

      “Even when Christians question the rabbinic scholar’s credentials to interpret Torah, they still pour over their booka to bolster the case for Jesus.”

      —(they are searching out historical cultural context, which is different than accepting Rabbinical authority)—

      “The rabbis think their views are relevant”

      —(I agree their views are relevant and even valuable, but authoritative? No. Mediators between Hashem and man? No. Infallible? No.)—

      Concerned Reader, all this is nothing more than a religious power struggle as old as Cain and Abel.

  43. Concerned Reader says:

    Concerned Reader,
    I can’t speak for Gean, but I’d think he would agree; it doesn’t matter what the millions out out of the billions of Christians believe or what the early Church fathers thought and taught, what matters is the teaching of Y’shua. To judge any other way is to judge by hearsay.

    Then anything in the New Testament is heresay by your own estimation. If the words of 2nd century Church Fathers are not relevant, then you have no clear chain of transmission to get back to Jesus’ authentic words and deeds.

      • 10th man says:

        Did you pick up on this?

        ” I would also encourage you to ask yourself why it is that those who saw themselves as a part of the covenant nation never saw the “confusion” that you see in the pages of scripture.”

        —(I disagree, there is a plethora of Jewish literature discussing topics just like you see in Scripture. I believe to say otherwise is painting a picture that doesn’t exist – revisionist history)—

    • 10th man says:

      “Then anything in the New Testament is heresay by your own estimation. If the words of 2nd century Church Fathers are not relevant, then you have no clear chain of transmission to get back to Jesus’ authentic words and deeds.”

      —(you’ll need to unpack that for me, I’m unclear on your meaning)—

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Concerned Reader,
        I can’t speak for Gean, but I’d think he would agree; it doesn’t matter what the millions out out of the billions of Christians believe or what the early Church fathers thought and taught, what matters is the teaching of Y’shua. To judge any other way is to judge by hearsay.

        10th man, Based on when scholars know the books of the New Testament were likely written, you do not have access to 1st hand accounts of Jesus’ own words and deeds that are reliable if we use the standard you are using.

        Paul is the earliest author of Christian texts. He wrote his epistles in approximately the 50s CE

        Then the gospel of Mark was written in the 60s-70s (we are not sure who really wrote it, unless you trust the testimony of the 2nd century Churchmen who tell us.

        Then Mathew in the 70s then Luke Acts in the 70s, and then John in the 90s CE

        If you do not believe that figures like Justin Martyr (100-165) , Clement (100s), or Polycarp (100s) represented an accurate interpretation of Jesus’ intentions, meaning, or ministry, then all you have is hearsay, and your own private inquiries.

        You are effectively saying that Jesus’ students couldnt even maintain a Torah true picture of Jesus their master for 100 years.

        Any reconstruction of a Torah true Jesus is purely hypothetical, because according to you, his teachings were thoroughly lost in 2 generations.

        • 10th man says:

          Concerned Reader,
          “you do not have access to 1st hand accounts of Jesus’ own words and deeds”

          —(Let’s be honest here; the same can be said for Moses, yet it isn’t, I wonder; why is that? Additionally, although I generally agree with the scholarly dating (which is all over the place depending on the scholar) it is still only educated speculation, the fact is we could have Y’shua’s words, word for word (doubtful) and never know it, again the same can be said of Moses. To borrow verbiage from Y’shua; people here are straining gnats when it comes to the Greek Scriptures and swallowing camels with the Hebrew Scriptures.
          Personally; I’m in favor of equal and fair treatment of both Texts and believe they both generally convey their proper meaning – but in neither can one hang on every word as from the mouth of Hashem to your ears – but generally yes)—

          Btw, I can take writings from different sects of Judaism and do the same as you do when you take selected writings from “church fathers” to prove a particular point. All the “church fathers” you selected are gentile. Why don’t you take someone like Jacob (James)?

          • RT says:

            Of course, all new testament believer think we should have “Fair” treatment of their sacred scriptures. I hate double standard, why don’t you have a fair treatment of the book of Mormon? It’s because it is inconsistent with your Christian Scripture. Why don’t we have a “Fair” treatment of your Christian Scriptures? Because it is plagued with inconsistencies and teaching that are in contradiction with the Hebrew Scriptures.

            Also, if Justin Martyr et al have a false understanding of the gospel 100 years after Jesus, how on earth do you think you unveiled the true Jesus 2000 years later? It only makes me think that Justin might be closer to the reality, but only won’t accept that truth because it is plagued with idol worship…

          • 10th man says:

            RT,
            1) your comment tells me you know very little about the book of Mormon – easy to prove as fallacious.

            2)Justin martyr was more than 100 years removed he was a whole culture and religion removed, it stands to reason he got many things wrong.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Because James gave us 1 letter 10th man. Just one, and its kind of a vague letter at that. Much like Yeshua’s own sayings they give us broad strokes ethical advice with few details.

            The idea that the Church fathers being gentiles has any bearing on their ability to read or interpret the New Testament is absurd.

            Those gentiles are the earliest records we have of how Jesus’ message was actually grasped and lived out by real people in actual detail. Furthermore, it is gentile Christians who preserved and maintained texts like the Didascalia, the texts that actually tell us about expected behavioral norms in the Christian community in much greater detail than the gospels.

            Later Christians like Tertullian even give us more valuable information (such as in his treatise against idolatry,) about what the proper Christian interaction with Pagans should be, how to handle idolatry when its encountered, etc. Needed details (that actually bear greater similarity to halacha by the way,) come to us from these gentile converts, not the Jewish followers.

            I brought up the scholarly dates for the New Testament books, because they show us in broad strokes the timeline and chain of transmission of these texts within a very short time.

            Jesus dies in the 30s CE, Paul Writes in the 50s CE, (20 years later) The Synoptic texts are in the 70s (20 years after Paul,) and John is in 90 CE, (20 years after that.)

            Those gentile Christians like Justin, Clement, Polycarp, etc. start writing in the 150s, arguably 50 years after your texts were written, and after the Bar Kochba revolt.

            In the grand scheme of textual transmission, that’s an extremely short time.

            You are worried whether a gentile would actually understand Jesus ‘message. My point is, you are cutting them short.

            They are the community that preserved it all, so they are the community that is directly relevant.

            The gentile Christians preserved and transmitted the New Testament texts, Canonized them, and they are also the ones who expanded on the details of the norms of Christian behavior and Community organization that allowed the movement to propel itself forward through the Roman period and later.

            Those people are the ones who took broad stroke ethics, and taught men how to actually carry them out in real life.

            Consider the following. I have looked deeply into the study of the historical Jesus. Trying to understand which words come from him, etc. trying to reconstruct what his Judaism likely was, etc.

            Here is the rub. If I create a historical reconstruction of Jesus’ sayings what I get is something roughly similar to Mussar (its just Jesus’ advice on Torah ethics,) with a sprinkling of arguments about halacha thrown in sporadically, but without much context.

            Thats why people look to the dead sea scrolls and the rabbinic corpus to reconstruct a halachic opinion for Jesus. His students didn’t leave us that information.

            HOWEVER, No matter what my reconstruction of Jesus is, it comes down to me from these gentile Christians who preserved and maintained. How could they not have known about what they preserved themselves?

            The real surprise though, is that the content we get from later gentiles is the content that bears more similarity to actual halacha,(details of dos and dont’s, and the how of it, how a community should function, etc.) comes to us in detail from gentile Christian works, like those of Justin, Origen, and Tertullian.

            Jewish Christians left something akin to Mussar, gentile Christians gave us manuals of discipline.

            When you speak about how these men had a different culture, and so they must not “get it,” you sound silly (unintentionally) because your reconstruction can only be meaningfully based on the work of these same gentile Christians. Its simply the reality of how the chain of transmission went.

            Jesus’ movement did not survive as a Torah based movement practiced by Jews and carried on, but what we do know of Jesus’ Judaism comes to us (within a short period relatively speaking,) from the gentile Christians.

            Even the material that we use to build a hypothetical historical Jesus comes from the gentile Christians.

            The Jewish Christian sects did not survive past the 300s.

          • Dina says:

            Here is one of the most bizarre and most un-self-aware responses I have seen on this blog:

            Challenge: “If Justin Martyr et al have a false understanding of the gospel 100 years after Jesus, how on earth do you think you unveiled the true Jesus 2000 years later?”

            Answer: “Justin martyr was more than 100 years removed he was a whole culture and religion removed, it stands to reason he got many things wrong.”

          • RT says:

            10th man,

            1) your comment tells me you know very little about the New Testament– easy to prove as fallacious.

            You got about 2000 years removed from Jesus, and you think you are more right than Justin Martyr? If Justin got things wrong (which no-one doubts) how much more things you got wrong?

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            “Personally; I’m in favor of equal and fair treatment of both Texts and believe they both generally convey their proper meaning – but in neither can one hang on every word as from the mouth of Hashem to your ears – but generally yes)—”
            ….Why choose Jesus then? If I don’t hang on every word and both at equally suspect, why listen to one over the other?

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB,
            “….Why choose Jesus then? If I don’t hang on every word and both at equally suspect, why listen to one over the other?”

            Why study a painting if you don’t know if every stroke of the artist’s brush was actually what they intended. Why study a previously damaged exquisite work of art which has been touched up?

            The truth is the big picture made up of tiny details, not in tiny individual details divorced from the big picture.

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            “Why study a painting if you don’t know if every stroke of the artist’s brush was actually what they intended. Why study a previously damaged exquisite work of art which has been touched up?”

            …..I asked. why choose Jesus? Jim and others here have given you the same reasons, and then some, why I left Christianity. You have not given me any reason, nothing, zilch, to choose/study your version of Christianity and/or what you believe Jesus was really teaching over what Lets say Rabbi YB would teach. Your art analogy is useless and yet again tells me you simply have no reason to choose Jesus.

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB
            “tells me you simply have no reason to choose Jesus”

            —(that just doesn’t make sense – what do you think I did, flip a coin?)—

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            Nice try.
            “—(that just doesn’t make sense – what do you think I did, flip a coin?)—”
            I don’t think anything, and I do not care what you believe. It’s fun enough for me to watch you expose how weak your argument is. Do you wish to answer the question?

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB
            “I don’t think anything, and I do not care what you believe. It’s fun enough for me to watch you expose how weak your argument is. Do you wish to answer the question?”

            —(if you don’t care what I believe, why do you keep asking, ignoring the repeated answer?)—

            —(Y’shua taught a simple Torah which reflects the original intention of Hashem in the face of a complicated Torah adulterated by men. And that is why a person should choose Y’shua)—

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            Now we’re making progress. I think we need a new thread now. Is it possible for you to be that succinct about the Holy Spirit?

  44. Jim says:

    10th man,

    You wonder at what you believe to be a double-standard among those of us that accept the words of Moses but do not accept the words of Jesus. Any method of criticism that is applied to Jesus, you believe could be equally applied to Moses. So, you reason, no criticism can be levelled against Jesus or his teaching from anyone that accepts Moses and his teaching. However, this view is deep in error. The differences between Moses and Jesus and between Tanach and the NT are great. A careful consideration of those differences shows why Moses is an authentic prophet and Jesus is not, and why Tanach is reliable and the NT is not.

    The Jewish people do not accept Moses by blind faith. Nowhere will you find in the Torah a statement like that made by Jesus in John 20:29: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” HaShem authenticated the prophecy of Moses before the entire nation. The whole nation heard HaShem speak. Moreover, they agreed to let Moses serve as messenger between them and God. (See Ex. 19 and 20). Moses had a double mandate, and one could harbor no doubt that HaShem spoke to Moses, because his prophecy was publicly verified.

    Jesus had no such verification. His claims to prophecy and messiahship were unilateral. HaShem did not speak to Jesus in the hearing of the nation. Therefore, the only way for Jesus to be verified as a prophet was within the existing Torah system. He would have to pass the tests of a prophet as mentioned in Deut. 13 and 18. But, Jesus did not pass those tests. In the matter of the resurrection alone, Jesus failed to establish himself as a prophet. When the Pharisees asked him for a sign, Jesus said the only sign an adulterous nation would receive was the sign of Jonah, the resurrection (Matt. 12:38-42). But Jesus failed to show himself. The resurrection would have to be taken on faith, which is not how signs work in establishing prophets. Jesus was not established as a prophet. When compared to Moses, it requires no double standard to recognize that Jesus is not a prophet. He was not verified publicly as Moses was; nor was he verified by the method laid out in the Torah that was to be applied to all subsequent prophets.

    Nor is there a double standard applied when comparing the preservation of the words of Moses and the words of Jesus. The Torah was preserved by a community, a community comprised of an entire nation. The words and teaching of the Torah were taught by parents to their children. And, should anyone doubt the teaching inherited from their parents, they could ask those around them. The community of the Jewish people served as a check against the corruption of the Torah’s message.

    The message of Jesus would suffer corruption almost immediately. It did not have the check of being given to a community. Instead, it was given to small groups. It was given not to a community but to communities. After the death of Jesus, competing interpretations of the gospel message were carried to new communities and developed in new communities. The first chapter of Galatians has Paul complaining about competing gospels. And yet, Paul was part of the problem. Paul never studied under Jesus. He never even met the man. He claims to have received his gospel in visions of Jesus, not even studying with Jesus’ students. He was an unverified prophet, himself, receiving prophecies from another unverified prophet—one that was dead. The people to whom he carried his messsage were far from the land where Jesus taught and could not easily examine the similarity and differences between Paul’s teaching and Jesus’ teaching.

    The incipient Jesus movement is reported to have been led by Jesus’ disciples originally, but it does not seem to have stayed that way for long. In the beginning of the Book of Acts, the disciples of Jesus are the heads of the movement. Peter is the major figure for the first several chapters of the book. But Peter fades into the background. The focus of the book becomes Paul. By the end of the book, when a conflict arises between Paul and the believers in Jerusalem, James the brother of Jesus is the head of the movement in Jerusalem. But, though James obviously knew Jesus, like Paul he did not study with him. He was not a believer during the life of Jesus. He was not a student of Jesus. The two main figures of the Jesus movement, then, within a generation after the death of Jesus were two men that did not study with him.

    And, just as different missionaries carried different gospels, so were multiple gospels penned, not just those that appear in the NT but others besides. The early Jesus movement was a cacophony of voices with competing messages. With so many competing gospels, it would have been helpful if the original disciples could have authenticated which gospels reflected what they had learned from Jesus. Unfortunately, they were unable to do so. Later generations would make this determination. This would be the work of those Church fathers that are rejected by modern believers in Jesus. They are those that have been declared to have misunderstood Jesus’ message, largely because they were not Jewish. One reason for their different opinions is that they did come from disparate communities with disparate gospels. From very early in its history, the Jesus movement went into its own diaspora. Whatever Jesus’ original message was, it was corrupted quickly.

    The reliability of Torah is then much greater than that of the NT, just as Moses’ prophecy is more reliable than Jesus’. Moses was authenticated by a shared prophetic experience. The entire community heard HaShem speak at Sinai. That same community preserved the words that HaShem gave to Moses. Jesus, on the other hand, was no prophet. He was not authenticated either by public revelation or by the tests provided by the Torah. And his words became confused by being spread by many different teachers to many different communities, where they became confused. It is no double standard being applied to Jesus and the gospels. They just do not rise to the standard of the Torah.

    Jim

  45. Dina says:

    Christian Love versus Muslim Hate

    A lot of Christians who visit this blog are mystified by our repeatedly pointing out the sins of the Church against the Jewish people when today Christians are the ones who support Jews and Israel and Muslims are the ones who hate us and want to annihilate us.

    It is true that today, Christians do not seek to keep us downtrodden as they had up until the 1960s (why Christians think a half century of good will in some quarters–without acknowledging the roots of that evil–is enough to wipe out over 1500 years of horrific persecution is a mystery to me).

    It is true that the hate toward Jews and Israel emanates mostly from some quarters of the Muslim and the secular liberal left (a strange alliance if ever there was one).

    It is also true that Christians deeply desire the conversion of the Jews and spare no effort and no expense to that end.

    Therefore, my friends, we are beset by two enemies today.

    The one wishes to destroy our bodies.

    The other wishes to destroy our souls.

  46. Dina says:

    Quibbling Over the Messiah

    The debate between Christians and Jews can never even get off the ground for one simple reason: while we use the same word, we each mean something else entirely. That word is messiah. Each religion defines that word completely differently, so we end up arguing at cross-purposes.

    The Jewish understanding of messiah (which literally means anointed, a title that applies to all kings and priests) is of a political figure who will ascend the Davidic throne at at time of universal peace and universal knowledge of God, following the return of the captivities from exile, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, the restoration of the sacrificial system, the national resurgence of Torah observance, and the vindication of Israel to the eyes of the nations.

    This understanding arises out of the teachings of Tanach. The passages are too numerous to cite here, so here are two that will suffice for now: Deuteronomy 30:1-9; Ezekiel 37:21-28.

    Tanach’s silence on the personhood of the messiah is telling in the sense that it is simply unimportant. We will recognize the messiah by his mission accomplished, and thus there will be no need to “believe in” the messiah. This idea of “believing in the messiah” is for this reason nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

    The Christian definition of the messiah is a divine figure (son of God) who suffers and dies to atone for the sins of of all mankind and then rises.

    So when a Christian asks a Jew why he doesn’t believe in Jesus, and the Jew says because he didn’t rule as the Davidic king over Israel, failed to restore the Temple and its sacrificial system (which in fact was destroyed shortly after Jesus’s death), failed to return the exiles to the Holy Land, failed to bring about universal peace and universal knowledge of God, etc.,–the Christian is truly baffled because this answer is completely irrelevant to his understanding of what the messiah is supposed to accomplish.

    And when a Christian tells a Jew that he cannot atone for his sins without accepting Jesus as his lord and savior, the Jew is equally baffled, because his very own Scripture teaches against such a concept by emphasizing the idea of free will and teaching that we are all the masters of our spiritual destiny.

    Genesis 4:7; Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 18; Ezekiel 33; I Kings 8:46-60

  47. Concerned Reader says:

    As long a Rabbinical Judaism is in control they will not recognize any Messiah who strips them of their power.

    Do you see the rabbis trying to destroy Chabad 10th man?

    What do you mean by power of rabbis? Rabbis are lay leaders. They have power because communities appoint them.

    • 10th man says:

      yourphariseefriend,
      I appreciate the link, but are unsure why you offered it. I agree that with the advent of Pauline doctrine Christianity underwent drastic changes and Judaism underwent significant changes learning to adapt without a Sanhedrin, a Temple, a sacrificial system and priests. Therefore I do not consider your inference labeling me as a hypocrite to applicable. You imply since Babylonian did not have a Temple, that the adjustment to losing Jerusalem was inconsequential, when in reality this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Your use of Ezra/Nehemiah suggests you agree with what I’ve been saying; namely this was the second big change in Judaism since Moses, the first being the Babylonian Exile when the Pharisees/Scribes began to take control.

      There are a large number of Christians who acknowledge the changes in Christianity and are very unhappy with them, therefore not all are hypocrites. And to say you are practicing the same Judaism as Moses or even first Temple Judaism is not supportable and in my opinion is a view not based in reality, but a view promoted vigorously by modern day Judaism, for the same reasons modern day Churches claim apostolic succession.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        10th man, we both (as communities) live in modern times. Rabbi B acknowledged in the opening of his post that the sages sought to preserve the soul and spirit of the tradition of their ancestors.

        The real question is, who did the better Job of this preservstion? Was it the Pauline Church (the only people who preserved any information about Jesus,) or the rabbinates?

        You mentioned the Karaites. I gather you respect them a lot. Did you know that Karaites adopt rabbinical halacha when they fail to formulate a better alternative? Why? Because they are not opposed to the tradition as such, only excesses. Rabbinic Jews often feel the same way about their own tradition, hence arguments like those between hassidim and mitnagdim.

        Karaites also have their own interpretations of biblical verses that are regarded as ambiguous. These are interprerations which they in their communities regard as authoritative.

        One difference between Karaite and Rabbinate is (as you have mentioned,) authority.

        You might believe, (im not sure if you do,) that Karaites reject outright the notion of sages who have authority over halacha, but if you do, you would be wrong.

        Karaites believe that only Kohanim have that authority, and surprise surprise, early Karaite leaders often had ties to Kohanim, and so, held authority just like rabbis, except they were Kohanim.

        When criticizing the authority structure of rabbinic Judaism, you should realize that no recognizable Jewish like group uses a different authority structure. NONE!

        The Samatitans, the Karaites, the Rabbis, all have a simmilar authority structure, and extra biblical works which they regard as authoritative when interpreting the law.

        If you read scroll 4QMMT in the DSS, you would see that even the Yachad (a group of Kohanim and their followers) used the same structure, and 4QMMT was their tradition for how to interpret/live out certain practices in the temple.

        The Dead Sea Sect had a much stricter interpretation of Torah law. Purity standards, food, etc. Very strict.

        HOWEVER, there isnt a different authority structure.

        You will never find Jews who lack some forn of belief in a sacred tradition, unless the movements are modern.

        You are mentioning “the rabbis” as though some kind of an oppressive kabal exists that is holding Jews back.

        You seem to think that if people had a karaite approach, that Yeshua would be more acceptable to them. The problem is, the most extensive polmic against the Christian Bible was written by a Karaite.

        The

        • Nikola says:

          Concerned Reader,

          While the structure of societal organization might be similar between Karaites and Mainstream Judaism, there is a great divide between the two groups on the question of oral law. Of course, there are also many similarities, and some Karaite groups might incorporate more Jewish tradition in their daily lives, but that does not mean that there is no big divide.

          You are correct in assertion that Karaites are not any closer to accepting things from New testament than any other practitioner of Judaism. And I urge anyone who is interested in karaite polemics with Christians to read:
          http://faithstrengthened.karaitejudaism.org/FS_TOC.html

          However, the point from 10th man was that mainstream Judaism is suppressing groups like Karaites, and there are many examples to support that claim. That is one of the dark sides of the mainstream Judaism, and people should not hide it or try to diminish it. I hope the things will change sooner than later in that regard. As much as I hope that missionaries will stop trying to convert Jews.

          • Dina says:

            Nikola, can you support your claim that mainstream Judaism tries to suppress other groups? I’m an Orthodox Jew and have never seen that to be the case.

          • Dina says:

            In general people should always substantiate serious accusations.

          • 10th man says:

            Nikola,
            Whether we agree or disagree you appear very adept at understanding and expressing the intended meaning of others – it is truly refreshing.

            Concerned Reader,

            “except they were Kohanim.”

            —(exactly, Kobanim religious authority is Hashem instituted original Judaism)—

            “You are mentioning “the rabbis” as though some kind of an oppressive kabal exists that is holding Jews back.”

            —(personally from rabbi to rabbi, no – a blanket judgement cannot be made of all rabbis, but I agree there is a derived religious system which is a kind of a oppressive kabal that is holding Jews back)—

          • Nikola says:

            Dina,

            I’m surprised that you are not aware of the Chief rabbinate’s treatment of Karaites. Here’s a few fairly recent articles about it (I’m talking about Karaites only, as an example of a small group that has been struggling under the monopoly of the Rabbinate, I do not know of other groups):
            https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21578098-old-religious-argument-once-again-rears-its-angry-head-whos-jew

          • RT says:

            Nikola, I think any religion would have some issues with groups unwilling to accept other idea. The world would be a better place each everybody would believe what they want and let other do the same. Unfortunately, this is true also for Judaism, but I doubt any religion would have not extremist… Have you seen “One of Us” on Netflix?

          • Nikola says:

            RT,
            I agree. So, maybe organized religion is not the way to go then. In the absence of the Temple and far removed from knowing who the priest and judges are, one has to rely on Tanach only in my opinion.
            Who’s to say that Karaites would not behave in the same manner if they were given opportunity. ..
            As for the movie you mentioned, I haven’t seen it, but I will as soon as I get a chance.

        • 10th man says:

          “So, maybe organized religion is not the way to go then.”

          —(amen Amen! Not that organized religion has no place, but Hashem, not religion should be the focus of ones life. When the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl shattered, we will not be able to say; “it was my religion’s fault, or this person told me this or that was what You wanted” we be accountable for our own actions. To prudently follow is one thing, but to follow blindly might just be unforgivable.)—

          • Concerned Reader says:

            I dont think people in most religions blindly follow. I probably never would have happened on this blog if I was a blind follower. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I have points of agreement, and points of disagreement on all sides.

          • 10th man says:

            I agree you and most here don’t blindly follow, but the majority of religious people I know do not question their religious leaders

  48. Concerned Reader says:

    this is demonstrably false, with your education, had you stop to think about it you’d remember some Christian sects being pro Torah and some Rabbis declaring Y’shua a Torah teacher, granted far and few, but Gean you and I are hardly the only ones to recognize Y’shua as a Torah observant Jewish
    teacher)—

    • Concerned Reader says:

      10th man, you missed the subtlety of my point.

      I know all about the ebionites and the Nazarenes, and their gospel fragments.

      However, I only know about them through the hostile lens of the herisiologists who hated them and sought their end.

      Those herisiologists are the same men who were responsible for deciding what was canon, what was not, etc.

      There are no records about Jewish Christians that were written and passed down by those same Jewish Christian groups. IE we have nothing like a Christian set of dead sea scrolls that describe details of Nazarene halacha.

      There are no descendants of the ebionites or Nazarenes alive today who practice or transmitted the halacha of Yeshua, who today identify as a community of Jews.

      Anyone who wants to emulate Jesus’ halacha today cannot, because we dont actually know what his halacha truly was.

      Messianics today have to create a hybrid hodgepodge of rabbinical halachot and norms, and try to incorporate Yeshua somehow.

      We only have sayings and parables, and a smattering of alleged arguments Yeshua had with the Pharisees about only a few points of biblical law.

      Why do you think Messianics sift through rabbinic traditions, and then decide which rules they will keep that are “of G-d?” And which they will discard as “traditions of men?”

      Nobody knows how Yeshua would keep all the different laws of the Torah, because he did not describe all of them to his students, and they did not survive to transmit them.

      How would Jesus run a beis Hamikdash? How should Sukkot be observed? What about the feast of the dedication? Should Yeshua’s students observe it or not?

      10th man. You claim that Yeshua removed the corruptions of rabbinic Judaism.

      How could that even be true, when he didn’t address the proper interpretations of so many of the commands?

      I’ve looked through the Didache and Didascalia, through Paul’s epistles, through the parables, etc. As I told you last time, Jesus’ sayings at most resemble Mussar. Its vague advice.

      Jesus issues Vague commands like “dont do Teffilin that way!” Does he describe how to do Teffilin right in detail? What verses should be in the teffilin that Jesus wants his Jewish disciples to use?

      • 10th man says:

        Concerned Reader,
        “I know all about the ebionites and the Nazarenes, and their gospel fragments.”

        —(I assumed you did, and much much more)—

        “There are no records about Jewish Christians that were written and passed down by those same Jewish Christian groups. IE we have nothing like a Christian set of dead sea scrolls that describe details of Nazarene halacha.”

        —(true Christianity doesn’t rely on predominantly on a text chain of transmission, it on the transmission of the Holy Spirit)—

        “There are no descendants of the ebionites or Nazarenes alive today who practice or transmitted the halacha of Yeshua, who today identify as a community of Jews.”

        —(true Christianity doesn’t rely on predominantly on a form of apostolic succession but on the Holy Spirit changing lives in each generation)—

        “Anyone who wants to emulate Jesus’ halacha today cannot, because we dont actually know what his halacha truly was.”

        —( we know what we need to know, the rest is given in a personal relationship with Hashem. You seem to be making the same mistake over and over, religion isn’t the end all of the destination, but rather a tool or vehicle to bring us into relationship with Hashem – this is why I say we know enough to get us to Hashem and He will teach us the rest)—

        “Nobody knows how Yeshua would keep all the different laws of the Torah, because he did not describe all of them to his students, and they did not survive to transmit them.
        How would Jesus run a beis Hamikdash? How should Sukkot be observed? What about the feast of the dedication? Should Yeshua’s students observe it or not?”

        —(no one should care, how to physically keep laws is not the focus of Y’shua’s halacha)—

        ” You claim that Yeshua removed the corruptions of rabbinic Judaism.”

        —(no I did not, but rather taught a corrected Judaism, a return to the original Torah where keeping Torah from the heart is far more important than externals)—

        “How could that even be true, when he didn’t address the proper interpretations of so many of the commands?”

        —(Concerned Reader, you strike me as a thinking man; did it ever occur to you why Y’shua didn’t have a scribe or write a book?)—

  49. Dina says:

    Courage and Patience in the Service of Truth

    The process of truth seeking requires huge doses of courage and patience. One who seeks the truth requires the courages to assume that he may be wrong about his most cherished beliefs and ideals. And one who seeks the truth requires patience because while the process is often exhilarating, it can also get tedious.

    One who refuses to question his own beliefs cannot properly understand and assess the arguments of another. He will seize on any story, event, quote, or argument that seems to advance his beliefs without properly checking the sources. Unable to emotionally withstand a challenge to his assumptions, he will interpret even the most reasonable and respectful argument as a personal attack either on his character or as a tool to trap him. Yet, while interpreting respectful dialogue as personal attacks, he will impute nefarious motives to his opponent and himself engage in ad hominem attacks.

    This has happened on this very page. A certain commenter seems unable or unwilling to directly address challenges using evidence such as Scripture and historical sources to back his argument but merely makes assertions such as the following:

    “It is my understanding that when Messiah comes the Sanhedrin will have to vote him in. If they can vote him in I suppose this means they can also vote him out. The ramifications of this are staggering. This means the leaders of modern Judaism have devised a system where they will always be in control and even Hashem’s anointed will have to bow to their authority.”

    A false conclusion based on a false assertion unsupported by any evidence.

    This same commenter cited a false Talmudic quote to bolster his views. To be fair, he likely found that quote on a missionary website. But the desire to use that against his opponents and to shore up his own faith may also have prevented him from investigating the source to see if it existed. When shown this to be a false quote, he said it was commentary on a Talmudic passage. When shown this to be false as well, he did not retract that statement.

    This is the quote which the commenter neither retracted nor for which he has apologized:

    “Sanhedrin records when they lost the scepter; the power of life and death; capital punishment: ‘Woe to us, for the scepter has departed from Judah and Messiah has not yet come’” (my emphasis).

    When one interprets respectful, reasoned challenges to his beliefs as personal attacks, then offers personal attacks of his own, you can be sure he lacks the courage to assume that he might be wrong about his beliefs or to be confident enough to mount a spirited defense no matter the tone of the challenge.

    Jim is one of the most unfailingly polite debaters I have ever met, yet in response to his painstaking, carefully reasoned, and clearly written comments, he has to contend with this:

    “I know you are trying to tear me down with your words” (assuming the argument is a personal attack) and “I’m not beyond making mistakes, therefore I’ll entertain this one more attempt to paint me into a corner” (assuming the argument is a tool to trap him).

    While imagining insults to himself in the most thin-skinned way possible, our insecure interlocutor will not be above imputing ill motives to his opponent. Here is another example from the same commenter: “I’m discerning your sincerity is lacking.”

    Sometimes a commenter will admit straight up that he will not entertain the possibility of being wrong. Examples include such statements as: “Would you entertain arguments from me that your parents don’t exist or that your husband is a figment of your imagination and your children aren’t really yours? It’s not what I know but Who I know” and in response to the challenge that it’s arrogant to refuse to consider the possibility that he might be wrong, “I forgive you, but disagree. I feel no need to examine the possibility of the sun not rising tomorrow, nor do I feel the need to prove to you that it will indeed rise.”

    The courage of a truth seeker is the courage of being willing to examine and reexamine his dearest beliefs and ideals in response to any challenge while accepting the possibility that he might be wrong. It is the courage of checking every bit of evidence that seems too good to be true to make sure it has an honest source. It is the courage of confidently mounting a strong defense backed by solid evidence of his ideas because he has already explored them in an intellectually honest way. It is the courage of ignoring personal attacks and negative tone in challenges to his positions and responding calmly and courteously only to the substance of the arguments.

    But courage is not the only virtue required to seek the truth. Seeking the truth requires patience. Researching both sides of a question takes time and tedium. Engaging with someone who disagrees with you means taking the time to thoughtfully consider his words and see if they hold up to scrutiny, then taking even more time to show why you agree or disagree, again patiently adding evidence to support your argument, rather than making unverified claims. You also need patience sometimes to review the same point many times, examining it from different angles, until clarity is achieved.

    An obvious ingredient has been overlooked: honesty. That is because honesty goes without saying. A truth seeker who is not honest, who cannot retract and apologize for citing even inadvertently false information, who cannot or will not back up his claims with evidence is not in fact a truth seeker. There is no point in engaging with such a person because the debate will become unfair and one-sided, with one side expecting the other to listen, understand, and examine his words while refusing to extend the same courtesy to the other side. Such a person would do well to be honest and proclaim: “I believe what I believe no matter what evidence is brought against my faith. I am here not to be convinced but to convince. I am here not to engage but to preach.” Such honesty would be refreshing! It would also save everyone a lot of time.

    May we all have the courage to face the truth, no matter how much it shakes up our world view. And may we all have the patience to engage with each other no matter how tedious the process becomes.

  50. Concerned Reader says:

    —(true Christianity doesn’t rely on predominantly on a text chain of transmission, it on the transmission of the Holy Spirit)—

    This is the default answer that every Christian gives to justify whatever view, for whichever Church hes part of, whether he has evidence or mot.

    Is Your “holy spirit” something that Jews who donr believe in Jesus have access to 10th man?

    • 10th man says:

      “This is the default answer that every Christian gives to justify whatever view, for whichever Church hes part of, whether he has evidence or mot.”

      —(it is hardly my fault exploit the truth to justify their view nor is hardly a new thing, but it doesn’t change the fact of what is – is)—

      “Is Your “holy spirit” something that Jews who donr believe in Jesus have access to 10th man?”

      —(All have access, predicated on acknowledgment of Y’shua, it is a promise given by Y’shua, so why would you ask if the promise is applicable to those who reject his words???)—

      • RT says:

        Poor David, he might have cried to the L-rd, but he never had the Holy Spirit 😦

        It’s inconvenient that you need “super power” to be able to see the truth of your belief. (You have to first believe to see all the evidence of your beliefs, and once you are part of those who believe, you must not doubt of ever deny the truth, if not you never had that “super power”)…

        • Eleazar says:

          Or even John the Baptist, who was “filled with the holy spirit” even before he was born. In other words, for thousands of years anyone could have the holy spirit until Jesus came on the scene, then suddenly you had to “believe in him” to get it.
          But then Jesus said that only those who were pre-chosen by God would be drawn to him BY the holy spirit. In other words, only those who believe in Jesus can have the spirit, but at the same time you cannot believe in Jesus unless you have the holy spirit. So only the pre-chosen can/will accept Jesus anyway.

          Think about that.

          • 10th man says:

            RT & Eleazar;
            Here is the problem with your comments, you act as if you really know. How do you know if this is the same Holy Spirit David had? Do you know if there is only one Holy Spirit or is there more than one? Do you know if the application of the Holy Spirit is the always the same? For example Scriptures talks about the Spirit coming over a person and also speaks about filling and indwelling a person, do you know if it is the same? Do you know where the Spirit ones from and where it goes? Do you know what the Holy Spirit does? Do you know if the Holy Spirit is a person? An entity? An energy? Or a force?

            When you know these things, or at least know what you don’t know, then your comments will carry some weight.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Indeed.

            The Christians like to say how much Christianity has improved Jusaism, or restored it, or taken it from “stale works,” to “spirit filled.”

            When Christians talk about the “Judaizers” and how they wanted to monopolize the love of G-d, etc.

            Today its Christians who do this. “If you dont accept Jesus, you lack the spirit of G-d.” Its the same tired club membership mentality and power trip that Christians claim they have fixed. Yeah, right.

            People observing the commandments is at least judgement by content of Chatacter, rather than a Jesus vaccine test.

            Its ironic that some people spend so much time building their “Torah True” Jesus, and yet that picture ends up being the same as any orthodox or Catholic picture, in Jewish window dressing.

          • Eleazar says:

            10th man. I am using the 2000 year old Christian understanding of the term. You, like almost every “Christian” who comes here, have your own definition of pretty much everything, and those definitions pretty much fly in the face of 2000 years of orthodox Christian understanding. To 99.99% of Christianity, the holy spirit is a single person in the trinity; a “him” not a thing.

            CR was correct ( and I am paraphrasing) when he said that messianics have no anchor in their views because they have to reject much of the New Testament and common Christian teaching, while cherry-picking the parts they want to keep in order to find an imaginary consistency between NT and Tanakh.

            When I address these issues it is with the conventional/traditional Christian understanding (orthodoxy) of the NT in mind. I have no inclination ( or time) to split hairs or debate hybrid definitions of the most common theological terms, such as how many “holy spirits” there are. According to Christianity, which is what I am debating, there is only one, and the Christian teachings about “him” make no sense whatsoever.

          • Larryb says:

            “Do you know what the Holy Spirit does? Do you know if the Holy Spirit is a person? An entity? An energy? Or a force?”

            A long time ago in a heavenly realm far far away…….

          • 10th man says:

            Eleazar,
            “To 99.99% of Christianity, the holy spirit is a single person in the trinity”

            —(we’ll forgive me for not believing in a trinity, you’ll have to find something else to reject me for)—

            “When I address these issues it is with the conventional/traditional Christian understanding (orthodoxy) of the NT in mind.”

            —(as horrifying as it may be to you to to have something in common with a believer in Y’shua, if you are intent on discussing “traditional/conventional Christianity you may find we agree on more things than not)—

          • Jim says:

            10th man,

            You fire off a barrage of questions about the holy spirit to RT and Eleazar, and tell them only when they are able to answer them will their comments carry any weight. Yet, you cannot define the holy spirit yourself, and consider any attempt at clarification of your views an attempt to paint you into a corner. By your own standard, one can say that your your comments do not carry any weight.

            Jim

          • RT says:

            Love you Calvin!

          • Dina says:

            I’m wondering if 10th man owns a horse or horses.

        • RT says:

          I lost interest in that subject, So the HS is an invisible being or thing; or possibly a force, that was before available to anybody who G-d wanted (Saul, David, Prophets), but not anymore. As long as we cannot see and prove 10th man idea neither who can/have the HS, I would say we are better with a subject that would bring better evidences…

  51. Dina says:

    Who Really Has the Holy Spirit?

    “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” (Isaiah 59:21).

    God appointed the people of Israel to be His witnesses (Isaiah 43:10,12; Isaiah 44:8). He promised that His spirit and words would never depart from our mouths and our descendants’ mouths forever (Isaiah 59:21, see above). He promised that we would preserve His testimony even when we stray (Psalm 78). He proclaimed that He placed his words within Jacob but did not do so for any other nation, who do not know His laws (Psalm 147:19-20).

    All of this tells us that religious truth cannot be found among the nations of the world, but only within the nation of Israel.

    The only ones who preserved the teachings of Jesus and his biographical information are those whom God did not entrust with the important task of preserving His testimony.

    The Christian will ask, how can sinning, imperfect Jews perfectly preserve God’s truth?

    God said we would do it, and I trust Him to keep His promise and figure out a way to ensure that His testimony would never be lost, forgotten, or altered.

    When God says His spirit will be upon us forever, I believe He keeps His promise.

    Of course, some Christians might argue that not every word in the Torah is true; forget the tiny details and look at the big picture. To that I say, a convenient argument that cannot be proven true or false has no place in an intellectually honest debate.

    Who really has God’s holy spirit? Don’t ask me; ask God. God says He gave it the Jewish people. If you have a problem with this take it up with God.

    • 10th man says:

      “He proclaimed that He placed his words within Jacob but did not do so for any other nation, who do not know His laws (Psalm 147:19-20).”

      —(Judah is only 1/12th of Jacob)—

      “All of this tells us that religious truth cannot be found among the nations of the world, but only within the nation of Israel.”

      —(to assume Israel only includes only those Hebrews who view Y’shua as irrelevant is elitist bigotry of the first degree)—

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Its not about bigotry. Its about denying an idolatrous impulse.

        You are the one who has suggested that we dont know G-d without a holy spirit. That holy spirit isnt the 3rd person of a tribity, but some other personal definition of you.

        Jews want Jews and gentiles to live under the laws that apply to each group. Just because you follow Yeshua’s ethic is no reason to reject you. Its the spititist definitions you are giving, the exclusive spiritual power you are giving Yeshua that makes Jews nervous. It makes them nervous, because its the same thing Christians always do.

        You cant help but insert Yeshua as the central fulcrum of your spirituality. No offense, but unless that center is Hashem, the father alone, Jews cannot go there.

        The rabbis didnt tell me not to believe in Yeshua. Yeshua is not a magic vaccine.

  52. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, are you listening to anything we are saying to you? It sure doesnt seem like it.

    Its irrelevant if you dont believe in the trinity.

    Let me unpack that.

    Because acceptance of a man of flesh and blood, and following an undefined “holy spirit” is more important to your theological picture, then is treating Torah as central, you fall in the same hole that any orthodox Christian does.

    You have said that the rabbis have taken control of Judaism. You have asserted (with very little evidence,) that abandoning that control would make us more receptive.

    Ive already explained that I dont blindly agree with anyone.

    Let me give you a piece of information ive learned, (as someone who has looked deeply into Jewish Christianity.)

    The only thing of relevance that Jesus brought to Torah was his ethic. Respect for Jesus’ ethics has nothing to do with messiahship, nothing to do with glorification, ressurection, whether or not Yeshua is “divine” in some sense, etc.

    All of those “spiritual” things are just window dressing that any person can choose to apply to any person.

    Mahayana Buddhist’s do it to Buddha, Sufis do it to Muhammad and other prophets more generally, Catholics do it to Mary, and the other messianic movements in Judaism did it to their rebbes.

    THATS WHY ALL THAT STUFF IS USELESS SPECULATION AND HOKUM.

    If you cannot look at a Jew or gentile who doesnt accept Jesus (but who nontheless observes Torah,) as a spiritual brother in equal standing with yourself, you are just like every other Christian.

    I know Jesus is not the messiah using the only verifiable clear and unambiguous definition.

    He is not here on earth ruling as an annointed king, so he does not fit a plain sense meaning of Moshiach that you would hear about in Torah.

    All the rest of the ideas like Moshiach dying, being an atonment, doing miracles, changing peoples lives, etc. Is all arbitrary information.

    Any group of Jews can (and has) tried to apply such ideas to their rebbes. And you know what?

    All the exhaustive and exclusive passages describing the messianic age, are yet to be fulfilled by anyone, including by Yeshua.

    If you tell me that Yeshua’s death was a Tikkun, or a necessary aspect of atonment, its absolutely no different than the Domneh telling me that kind of thing about Shabbatai Tzvi, or Chabadniks saying it about the rebbe Menachem.

    Any proof you could bring me would not phase me. I have heard it before, used by Christians, and other forms of Jewish messianic groups that dont involve Jesus, but another rabbi.

    Same “proofs” used for different candidates, and yet, the age of the Mesiah still isnt here.

    Remi once asked me “aren’t you bothered by the proof texts?” I said no, not at all, because I know how vague they really are. You can claim that anyone is a vessel for G-d.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      “If you cannot look at a Jew or gentile who doesnt accept Jesus (but who nontheless observes Torah,) as a spiritual brother in equal standing with yourself, you are just like every other Christian.”

      —(show me an Orthodox Jew who accepts another Jew who believes in Y’shua as a spiritual brother in equal standing with themselves)—

      • Concerned Reader says:

        I love how you only post what suits you from what I write.

        I said A Jew will accept you if you follow the ETHICS of Jesus.

        Should I accept the position that I need a man to die as a vaccine for my sins so I can be with G-d?

        • 10th man says:

          “I said A Jew will accept you if you follow the ETHICS of Jesus.”
          —(only if you leave Jesus out of the ETHICS)—

          “vaccine for my sins”
          —(no such thing is taught in the Greek Scriptures)—

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Vaccine for sins

            10th man, the NT is full of references that treat Jesus as the exclusive means of atonment.

            The Christian scriptures, (even the Jewish gospel fragments) teach that the sacrificial system didnt actually forgive sins. The solution to them is to place trust in Jesus for atonment.

            John 3:16

            1 John 5:12

            Romans 3:25 cross referenced with Hebrews 10 4-11

            (Epiphanius of Salamis Panarion Ebionite gospel fragments.)

            They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of 
            the archangels … that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the 
            Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called 
            Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews?,
            reports:

            “I am come to do away with sacrfices, and if you cease not sacrificing,
            the wrath of God will not cease from you.”
            (Epiphanius,  Panarion 30.16,4-5)

  53. Jim says:

    10th man,

    I think you might have missed the comment above: https://judaismresources.net/2017/08/02/the-doctoral-candidate-a-parable-by-jim/#comment-40245

    I await your response.

    Jim

  54. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, Hashem spoke to Moses through the burning bush.

    Does that mean itwould be ok to pray to G-d in the name of the bush?

    Should I sing songs like “worthy is the bush” or”nothing but the sap of the bush?”

    Should I demand that people be annointed with the oil of the bush?

    I also understand the trinity, incarnation, and hypostatic union.

    None of that theological spexulation changes the facts on the ground that a being of flesh is seen as the only doorway to G-d.

    Remember when G-d made Moses build the serpent of brass? Even though it came from G-d, it became an object of idol worship. Same thing with Jesus.

    • Larryb says:

      CR
      I always liked, “I am the Bush of life”…..Glory and Praise to our Bush…..Bush be our Light…..and my favorite…..Amazing Bush ! 🙂

      • Eleazar says:

        Would you be free from the burden of sin? There’s power in the sap! Power in the sap!

        • 10th man says:

          LarryB & Eleazar,
          Hashem has used the “Bush” as you say to save millions or perhaps billions bringing them back to Him. I for one certainly wouldn’t want give an account for these words before Hashem.

          Btw, you all claim to follow Hashem. What I see is people following Moses and a whole lot of rabbis

          • Larryb says:

            10th man
            I’m moving today and heading north so I won’t have any time here. But a little warning, you need to smile when you write, CR will literally eat you for lunch.

          • Dina says:

            Larry, surely you don’t mean literally? That would be very not good :).

          • Larryb says:

            Dina
            Of course not. It’s meant as a compliment. He’s been known to really let loose with his 45colt with 6 ink wells.

          • Dina says:

            Lol. Great mental image.

          • LarryB says:

            10th man
            Can you point to how I follow Moses and a bunch of rabbis? Can you also explain how your following Jesus is different than what you say we do? Can you at least explain why anyone should listen to anything Jesus said? Wasn’t he a rabbi?

          • 10th man says:

            “Can you also explain how your following Jesus is different than what you say we do?… Wasn’t he a rabbi?”

            Thank you LarryB for making my point.

          • LarryB says:

            10th man

            And your point was?..

          • 10th man says:

            Jews and Christians do the same thing, they just have different rabbis and a different drash.

          • LarryB says:

            10th man
            Moses was not a rabbi. You haven’t answered the question.

          • Dina says:

            10th,

            Still wondering if you’ll indulge my seemingly irrelevant question about what kind of device you use to post here. I know it sounds silly, but I hope you’ll tell me anyway.

            Thanks!

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB
            So you expect me to believe Moses wasn’t a teacher? – that’s going to take a lot of convincing. But you do prove another point of mine yet again – in a roundabout way you are admitting that Judaism has changed so drastically, that now Moses isn’t even thought of as a rebbe, yet on the other hand we hear it has never changed.

          • LarryB says:

            10th man
            You still haven’t answered the question. -“Can you point to how I follow Moses and a bunch of rabbis”-?

          • Dina says:

            Larry, it’s true that 10th man hasn’t answered your question. However, he is right about one thing. Moses is often referred to as Moshe Rabbeinu, which means Moses our Teacher. So although he wasn’t like the modern rabbi you envision, and although the position of rabbi as an official job wasn’t known until over a thousand years later, the term rabbi could fairly be applied to him.

            Also, while I wouldn’t try to discount his own personal spiritual experiences–I can’t tell him what he experienced and didn’t experience–I think it’s interesting that he would discount ours by claiming we don’t follow Hashem. Speaking for me, for example, I pour out my heart to Hashem every day, I see His guiding hand in my life, I try to obey His commandments–if this isn’t following Hashem, I would like to know how he defines following Hashem.

            Who, by the way, said to follow the rabbis! (See Deuteronomy 17:8-11.)

          • 10th man says:

            LarryB,
            Seeing how adamantly you want your question answered I scrolled up to look at some of your posts, I didn’t have to go far, just a few inches. Although this isn’t following Moses, (because I don’t think Moses was a comic at the expense of others) but it puts you directly in the footsteps of the rabbi of this blog, although he is not as blatant or a comedian. Maybe you are just upping the game of Christian bashing looking for approval from your rebbe and peers. How does this kind of stuff repair the world and bring healing?

            “Larryb says:
            December 1, 2017 at 8:52 am
            CR
            I always liked, “I am the Bush of life”…..Glory and Praise to our Bush…..Bush be our Light…..and my favorite…..Amazing Bush ! 🙂”

          • 10th man says:

            Proverbs 12:13
            “An evil man is trapped by his sinful talk,
            but a righteous man escapes trouble.”

          • LarryB says:

            10th man
            You still have not answered the question. -“Can you point to how I follow Moses and a bunch of rabbis”.- you’ve only shown where I don’t follow moses.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      “None of that theological spexulation changes the facts on the ground that a being of flesh is seen as the only doorway to G-d.”

      —(Unless the life and message of Y”shua was annoited to epitomize the way to Hashem )—

  55. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, may I ask you a Question? How many Jews (orthodox Conservative or reform) have you worshiped with?

    Have you sat at table with them? Been to services in Synagogue? Been to a bar Mitzvah?

    • 10th man says:

      Been part of two different communities – attending two synagogues for years. Why is my personal life important to you?

      • Concerned Reader says:

        I was merely curious. The way you speak about rabbinic Judaism, i was curious if you had actually worshiped among religious Jews.

        • Dina says:

          Con, Reform and Conservative Jews are religiously so different from Orthodox Jews that in terms of how they worship they cannot all be lumped into the same category. It might be helpful to press 10th on whether he has mingled with and worshiped with Orthodox Jews.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Dina, a reform or conservative Jew can have as much knowledge of scripture and tradition as anyone who is Orthodox does. The difference is in regards to their personal choices about their level of observance, their views of biblical criticism, etc.

            I’ve read more than my share of treatises written by very religious men, but off course, I’m not observant. I’ve even seen the reform movement act as a bridge for converts when the local Orthodox community saw that the people weren’t acclimated to Jewish practices well enough to join the community yet.

            What I was getting at with 10th man, was a question of how many real people he applies his rhetoric about Jews to.

  56. Dina says:

    The Messianic Expectation

    Part One: Who’s Right?

    A Christian response to the Jewish position that Jesus can’t be the Messiah because he didn’t fulfill the messianic promises can be summed up thus: Just because he wasn’t what you expected is no reason to reject him. What are you going to tell God when he asks you why you rejected Jesus? That he wasn’t what you expected? How do you think that’s going to go over?

    The Jewish position points to the fact that Tanach teaches openly and clearly what to expect in the messianic era. Moses promises the nation of Israel that after all the blessings and curses come upon us, we will return to Torah observance according to everything he has taught us on that day, and then God will gather us in and restore us to the Land (Deuteronomy 30). Ezekiel promises us that a scion of the House of David will rule over a united Israel during an era of universal peace, knowledge of God, a restored Temple, an ingathering of exiles to the Land, etc. (Ezekiel 37).

    On the other hand, Christianity teaches the following about the messiah:

    The messiah must be a sinless human being.
    The messiah must suffer and die in order to atone for the sins of mankind.
    The messiah is the word of God made flesh; he is the living, breathing Torah (whatever that means) (John 1).
    The messiah will die, then come back at a later date to fulfill the messianic prophecies.
    According to most Christians, the messiah is also divine, part of the triune godhead.
    You must believe in the messiah.
    If you do not believe in the messiah you will be punished.

    There is one problem with these teachings, and that is this: They are not taught in the Torah.

    It is the height of audacity to make up teachings out of whole cloth, teachings that are not taught in the Torah, and then sneer at Jews for adding on to the Torah.

    It is the height of audacity to sneer at Jews for rejecting Jesus just because he wasn’t what we expected.

    Why? I’ll tell you why.

    We test the words of self-proclaimed prophets against the words of the vetted prophets who preceded them. If the teachings don’t match, we reject the prophet, not his predecessors. How else are we supposed to know if a prophet is true?

    To say that we reject Jesus because he wasn’t what we expected is to make a lie of all the messianic promises. We believe that the Torah is telling us true when it says that the messiah will be a Davidic king who will rule over Israel during a utopian era. It’s a strange and disingenuous argument because those who argue thus would never accept it regarding Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any other number of self-proclaimed prophets that mainstream Christians don’t accept. The idea that they might reject these prophets because they weren’t what they expected would appear absurd to them.

    Our eyes are not lying. The Torah’s teachings are crystal clear.

    Christianity’s teachings are crystal clear as well.

    They clearly contradict the Torah. They are clearly false.

    Part Two: Expectation or Obsession?

    The Torah and traditional Judaism do not share Christianity’s obsession with the messiah.

    To understand our different perspectives, we need to start at the beginning, with the Hebrew word mashiach, anglicized to messiah.

    This word means anointed one. The word “hamashiach,” the anointed one, is never used in Tanach to refer to the king who will rule over a united Israel at the end of days. It is used to refer to other figures in Tanach, such as Aaron, “the anointed priest;” and the word “mashiach” is used many times throughout Tanach. The process of anointing was common.

    Since all kings were anointed, and the figure who will rule over Israel will be an anointed king, we simply got into the habit of referring to him as the “anointed one,” or the “mashiach.”

    However, in the entire canon of Hebrew Scripture, this figure is infrequently and lightly mentioned as compared to the emphasis on themes of importance. For example, the theme of monotheism, the importance of Sabbath observance, the concept of reward/punishment for obedience/disobedience, the promises of redemption–all these are strongly and repeatedly emphasized. The Tanach does not concern itself with who the messiah will be, nor does it command us in any way concerning him.

    Although as Jews in exile we anticipate the coming of the messiah which will usher in an era of world peace, universal knowledge of God, and our vindication–finally!–in the eyes of sneering gentiles, we don’t really care who the messiah specifically is (unless you’re Chabad, a fraction of Orthodox Jews). We don’t care, because we only care about the things the Torah tells us to care about.

    On the other hand, Christianity focuses on the messiah. The specific figure of the messiah, whom they believe is Jesus, takes front and center stage in Christianity. Christianity, as its name denotes, is Christ-centered (christ being derived from the Greek word to anoint). Judaism, as its name denotes (it comes from the Hebrew word to acknowledge or thank), focuses on God. Acknowledging God in everything we do, thanking him for our existence and the privilege of serving Him.

    Judaism teaches us to love and fear God, to obey Him, to walk in His ways, to love His children and render justice to them, to treat them with charity and compassion. Christianity teaches its adherents to accept Jesus as their lord and savior in order to be saved from eternal damnation. Secondarily, it teaches all those other things.

    As a background to looking to God and following His ways, Judaism encourages an expectation of the messiah and a yearning for better days.

    As a foreground to looking to Jesus and following his teachings, Christianity encourages an obsession with the messiah that is antithetical to the Torah.

    • 10th man says:

      Wow, “sneering Gentiles” “disingenuous” “height of audacity” – – – hate and venom dripping off every word, except when talking about how great Jews are. Why would anyone waste their time responding to such a pack of calculated half truths when it is obvious you are not here to learn and share with others, but only to teach.

      • Jim says:

        10th man,

        You “steered” into this conversation to lend your voice in support of the idea of Jewish blindness. You came quoting a fraudulent Talmudic passage, refusing to give its source. This does not reflect one that came here to learn, but only to distort the truth.

        Jim

        • 10th man says:

          “You “steered” into this conversation to lend your voice in support of the idea of Jewish blindness.”

          Jim, that’s lovely, just lovely.

          Btw, Fyi ; if I thought Jews were totally blinded, I would have no problem just coming out and saying so.

          • Jim says:

            10th man,

            If you think my comment was “lovely,” what do you make of this unjustified remark you directed at Eleazar and LarryB: “Btw, you all claim to follow Hashem. What I see is people following Moses and a whole lot of rabbis.” Do you know them? Are you their judge? If you do not like my “lovely” comments, it might be better to keep your ugly ones to yourself.

            Jim

          • 10th man says:

            Jim, please, the “you” is a generic ‘ya’ll’. If it applies to Eleazar and LarryB, then it does, if if doesn’t, then it doesn’t. But what do they have to do with you and I? Do you follow Moses and the rabbis?

          • Jim says:

            10th man,

            Your accusation is no less ugly for its generality. You are no more the judge of many than of the few.

            Jim

          • 10th man says:

            Jim,
            If you were reading with a good eye you would notice I didn’t judge, but merely made an observation. Which btw; an observation I asked if was true of you – you never answered.

          • Eleazar says:

            10th Man.
            I noticed your use of “totally”. Do you then feel we are only “Partially blinded?” Which part? I am guessing you mean that we see clearly when we agree with you and are blind where we disagree. In other words, we see “clearly” on the falseness of the trinity, but a blind to Jesus as the Christ?

          • 10th man says:

            Eleazar,
            I’ve said twice on this page; anyone following a religious system in lieu of Hashem is partially blinded.

          • Jim says:

            10th man,

            I am sorry, but you are confused about the difference between observation and judgment. You do not know any of the people here, as far as I know, and you cannot have observed whether they are devoted to HaShem or not. You have opposed following HaShem to following Moses and the rabbis: “Btw, you all claim to follow Hashem. What I see is people following Moses and a whole lot of rabbis.” This opposition implies that “you all,” whomever fits in that category, does not follow HaShem. You do not know “you all.” You do not know their devotion to HaShem, or their lack of devotion. This is not something you can “see.” It is not an observation, but a judgment—a pre-judgment at that.

            Now, as to why I have not answered your question: Normally, I would answer any question asked of me. I believe questions are valuable, even challenging questions. However, your question is not useful in this regard. Because you have opposed following HaShem to following Moses and the rabbis, your question amounts to nothing more than an accusation: “Is it not true that you do not really follow Hashem, but follow Moses and the rabbis, instead?” It is not a legitimate question.

            Jim

          • 10th man says:

            Jim,
            You really ought to give up trying to judge and condem me – it’s not working. Mine is not a judgement but a general observation of the Jews I know – I admit I know first hand of some exceptions, but out of the people here attacking Y’shua I’m not sensing any exceptions – but again that is only an observation not a judgement of people.

  57. Larryb says:

    Dina
    A very good and timely post. Sadly the Christian will only nit pick a sentence here or there but never have I seen them respond in kind. They can’t.

  58. Concerned Reader says:

    “I said A Jew will accept you if you follow the ETHICS of Jesus.”
    —(only if you leave Jesus out of the ETHICS)—

    If Jesus taught true ethics, they are good and true whether they came from his mouth or someone else’s.

    If Jesus had a particular bearing, or a way he walked out the commands, I can see that, but it still doesn’t mean that I need to recognize him personally.

    The disciples of Jesus themselves (with the Judaizer controversy) realized that making the message contingent on a set of beliefs could negate the effectiveness of the entire message.

    Followers of Jesus today have made acceptance of Jesus’ blood and of his person into the Circumcision of our day. Jesus’ teachings don’t mean anything if you have to be aligned to him specifically.

    When he says “I have sheep who are not of this sheep pen,” or “you saw me hungry but did not feed me,” the implication is that Jesus himself wanted his students to look beyond community identity markers when dealing with people, because thats the only way for real justice to function.

    Followers of Jesus today have made Jesus’ blood, and a cross, into the identity markers.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      I agree with what you’ve written about “identity markers” but it goes (or is supposed to go) deeper than that.

      “If Jesus had a particular bearing, or a way he walked out the commands, I can see that, but it still doesn’t mean that I need to recognize him personally.”

      What does Torah say about ignoring or slandering a good man? – not that you do but many here do – they seem unable -UNABLE!- to separate Y’shua from mainstream Christianity. Christians don’t condem Hashem because of the Jews, why do they condem Y’shua because of the Christians???

      • Dina says:

        10th, would you humor me for a moment and tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements? Just “agree” or “disagree” will suffice, so it won’t take more than a moment of your time.

        1. The Jewish people were punished with the destruction of the Temple and subsequent exile because of her rejection of Jesus.

        2. The Talmudic concept of two messiahs may be applied to Jesus in the sense that his first advent represents Messiah son of Joseph and his second advent represents Messiah son of David.

        3. The mission of Jesus to restore the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel is being accomplished as billions of Christians the world over embrace Christianity.

        Thank you for your time.

        • 10th man says:

          1) disagree
          2) “concept” agree
          3) restored – disagree / phase one of a restoration – agree

          • Dina says:

            Thanks for answering my questions, 10th! If you don’t mind answering one more question on this topic:

            In your view, for what sin or sins was the nation of Israel punished with the destruction of the Temple and exile from her Land?

            Thanks!

          • 10th man says:

            Dina,
            Surely you’ve read Ki Tavo, Nitzavim, Valelekh and Ha’azinu almost every year of your life – Why do you think these things were allowed to come on Israel?

            I wasn’t there living at the end of the second Temple period, therefore all I can do is read historical accounts, the speculations of others and then make my own educated guess. I know from Talmud even the rabbis knew ahead of time it was coming. They knew things weren’t right. I also have read at the time some speculated it was the murder of Ya’akov at the Temple.

            I will say this; a religious society where a person like Y’shua is executed with the blessings of the religious leadership tells me something about that society – and it’s not something I think Hashem approves of.

          • Dina says:

            10th, thank you for answering all all my questions. Please indulge me once more and answer this question although I know it seems bizarre and highly irrelevant:

            What kind of device do you use to post comments on this blog? I am not trying to track you down, rest assured—not that knowing the type of device you use could possibly help anyway :).

            Thanks again!

  59. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man. Today Christians use the name of Jesus to try and “cast out demons,” they sing “there’s power in the blood,” etc. Jesus has become a talisman. Recognition of a trinity and creeds, or of a wafer and wine, or of a cross and blood, is seen as an injection of the holy Ghost to empower you.

    The problem I see here is that When I read about Jesus interacting with the demons, or when he is telling his students how to handle them, he never says to use his name or a meal like some kind of talisman.

    He goes to them and says the disciples can do greater works than he has done!

    In fact, he is continually frustrated that his students don’t seem to have the faith within themselves to do what he himself is doing by themselves with faith.

    If Jesus meant what he said when he said “the kingdom of G-d is within you,” then its antithetical to his entire approach to make him into the message.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      Again we agree – we really agree on all the points you’ve made and it saddens me the Christian Church has fallen into the same traps of externals as Judaism has.

      “then its antithetical to his entire approach to make him into the message.”

      —(yes and no, his name is indeed a touch stone for the message, but more than that he is a unique ben elohim who has been raised by Hashem to a place of authority and power where he intercedes for those needing help. If modern Judaism doesn’t believe in angels and ben elohim – then they have truly lost touch with their history)—

  60. Concerned Reader says:

    (yes and no, his name is indeed a touch stone for the message, but more than that he is a unique ben elohim who has been raised by Hashem to a place of authority and power where he intercedes for those needing help.

    When you call Yeshua a ben Elohim, how are you using this term? Is he a Malach, a glorified human soul? Do you pray to him or petition him?

    Again we agree – we really agree on all the points you’ve made and it saddens me the Christian Church has fallen into the same traps of externals as Judaism has.

    Its not really that Judaism has “fallen” though. Judaism may be imperfect, but Judaism has never made the claim that it was infallible, contrasted with the Church which does claim such.

    When the rabbis emphasize repentance for example, over sacrifice, its because everyone knows that even if you have a sacrifice, if you are unrepentant and actions don’t change, the sacrifice is useless.

    The rabbis teach as a matter of law that someone can love and serve G-d without being a member of their religion. That itself means that Judaism is capable of judging humans by Character, not by whether they are a member. The believers in Jesus that I have interacted with by contrast care more about whether I accept Jesus as the messiah and savior then they do the content of my character.

    Followers of Jesus speak about being full of grace and “spirit filled” yet there is not a clear definition of either of these, so everyone claims it is them.

    Doctrines that are not clear, or that are mysterious belong to G-d, its not a human’s place to enforce belief in such areas.

    (Deuteronomy 29:29) “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, THAT WE MAY DO all the words of this law.”

    This goes right along with the warnings in Deuteronomy 4:14-20.

    You called Yeshua’s name a “touch stone,” but herein lies the problem. That name is associated with a being of flesh who is described by people as having a specific nature, which people ague about. I want to know what a “ben Elohim” means to you.

    • 10th man says:

      Concerned Reader,
      “When you call Yeshua a ben Elohim, how are you using this term? Is he a Malach, a glorified human soul? Do you pray to him or petition him?”

      —(I believe as the Greek Scriptures teach; no one knows who he really is)—

      “…but Judaism has never made the claim that it was infallible,….”

      —(then I ought to be able to disagree (say on Y’shua) and not be outcast – if that is not true then someone thinks only they have the right answers and everybody must agree or else)—

      “if you are unrepentant and actions don’t change, the sacrifice is useless”

      —(as it is with a declared belief in the faith of Y’shua)—

      “The rabbis teach as a matter of law that someone can love and serve G-d without being a member of their religion.”

      —(the rabbis do teach that but the reality is; even if they make conversion they are thought of as second class citizens until the second or third generation)—

      “The believers in Jesus that I have interacted with by contrast care more about whether I accept Jesus as the messiah and savior then they do the content of my character.”

      Concerned Reader; they are Christians – why would you expect any different? They believe works/character does not save a person – (and I agree). As a landlord I’ve rented to a pair of lesbians, they were the most upstanding individuals I think I’ve ever had as tenants, but any kind of relationship with Hashem was sorely lacking)–

      “Followers of Jesus speak about being full of grace and “spirit filled” yet there is not a clear definition of either of these, so everyone claims it is them.”

      —(This is not the fault of Greek Scriptures or Christians, living in the physical world Spirit of any kind is impossible to quantify. As for “Grace” I must disagree with you’re assessment. Here is what grace means; ‘Unmerited Favor”)—

      “Doctrines that are not clear, or that are mysterious belong to G-d, its not a human’s place to enforce belief in such areas.”

      —(I couldn’t agree more, in fact this ^^^ could be my mantra)—

      “I want to know what a “ben Elohim” means to you.”

      —(Keep in mind you are asking for my opinion. Do I think it is right? Well sure I do, otherwise I’d have a different opinion. I’m not says saying I know I’m right, but I’ve ruled out many of the slanderous things said here.
      Y’shua is “uniquely” a son of Ha El Elyon, beyond that not much more is known)—

      “10th man, we dont agree that much, because Jesus is not a messiah, an object of devotion to me”

      —(because of ‘One’ thing, “we don’t agree that much” – is this peer pressure talking?)—

      • Concerned reader says:

        —(I believe as the Greek Scriptures teach; no one knows who he really is)—

        elaborate. Do you pray to him? by “unique son” is he an angel? Is he a man like Adam before the sin? Is he a manifestation of divine wisdom (as John’s gospel taught?) Whats your opinion? Is Jesus infallible?

        • 10th man says:

          “elaborate. Do you pray to him?”
          —(contrary to popular belief here; according to the Greek Scriptures, Y’shua taught repeatedly to pray to the Father)—

          “by “unique son” is he an angel?”
          —(no, not in the sense I assume you to mean it, but yes he was sent by Hashem with a message, therefore an angel in the strictest sense)—

          “Is he a man like Adam before the sin?”
          —(I’m assuming you refer to S’haul’s drash? If so, who could ever know this? Therefore I find the hypothesis pointless)—

          “Is he a manifestation of divine wisdom (as John’s gospel taught?)”
          —(yes, but there are many manifestations of divine wisdom. Are you referring to wisdom personified? I’d agree with that, but alone I think it falls short of the totality of who Y’shua is)—

          “Whats your opinion?”
          —(I know how things are twisted out of context here, therefore allow me to reiterate to potential twisters; you asked for my opinion and not divine knowledge. In my opinion he was physically a man. Spiritually; no one knows, but I think the Greek Scriptures do more than hint at a pre-existence, therefore a spiritual being of some sort; i.e. a ben Elohim)—

          “Is Jesus infallible?”
          —(in as much as he follows Hashem, for only Hashem is infallible)—

          • Concerned Reader says:

            —(in as much as he follows Hashem, for only Hashem is infallible)—

            So, no then?

            In your opinion then, Yeshua being described as embodiment of Divine wisdom personified isn’t enough of a description? In what sense?

            “Is he a man like Adam before the sin?”
            —(I’m assuming you refer to S’haul’s drash? If so, who could ever know this? Therefore I find the hypothesis pointless)—

            I agree. What I’m trying to ascertain is why you feel Yeshua is absolutely indispensable, from the standpoint that its somehow not ok for us to defend Judaism?

            From my understanding, Yeshua often played fast and loose with some of the commandments, though I don’t believe he taught to violate them. I also do not ascribe any divinity to him, because even if he were a ben Elohim, in some sense, Deuteronomy 4 explicitly says not to worship the “whole host of heaven,” which would include anything like that.

            The Greek Testament and centuries of Christian commentary (from the time of Justin Martyr,) love comparing Yeshua to the so called “angel of great council,” the Logos, and the captain of Hashem’s host, IE alleged Theophanies in the Tanakh.

            I’ve studied trinitarianism and Unitarianism in depth, and what I notice is that even though people have such different theological definitions from all over the spectrum, they still ascribe other worldly power, influence, and honors to a member of the host of heaven. IE it all boils down to a place where Yeshua is at the center.

            I know you dont seem to trust rabbinic authority, but maybe this will set your mind at ease somewhat.

            Judaism has opposed normative traditional Christianity since its ascendance. When Christians brought up the Pope, Jews responded that no man is infallible. When Catholics venerated Mary, Jews called it what it was, IE idolatry.

            When rabbis were presented with Messianic candidates like the Rebbe (whose Messianic tendencies slightly parallel Christian Messianic trends,) the rabbis rejected the movement for Just reasons, IE the messianic age did not dawn with the Rebbe, or Shabbatai Tzvi, or with Yeshua. Its consistency on their part.

            Consider that If the rabbis were indeed hellbent on controlling the Jewish world, they do a really terrible job at convincing their masses to follow Charismatic leaders, whoever they are. Wouldn’t you say? The rabbinic track record has been to question Charisma and flash in various teachers, both inside and outside.

            What better system of controlling people then to emulate the Catholic Church? lol ; )

            And yet, if you compare the authority structure of the Church and Synagogue, they are not even similar. No rabbi I’ve ever met claims to be a prophet. However, you would not believe the number of Messianics who come here saying they have prophecy, or that we MUST listen to them.

            Think about it logically for a moment. If the rabbis wanted to cement their power, questioning would not be such a huge deal in Jewish education. True, once a halacha is decided, they say that is the rule you must follow, but beyond that, you don’t need obedience to even one rabbi. Also, consider that even established laws are full of different opinions. lol

            My point here is, if you have dealt with rabbis being short with you regarding your belief in Yeshua, consider the centuries of horrible things done in that name. When I first came to the blog as a Jesus believer, I too was met with some attitude. However, when you think about the interactions, its clear why.

            I came in here with an academic perspective on yeshua, that was my understanding. However, this blog exists to combat the large and expensive Christian effort to missionize Jews convincing them to join the man deity who dies for sins.

            So, even if you have a halachic Yeshua ideology, he’s not the focus of this blog. Lets say that Jesus was a rabbi who kept halacha, and lets say he is a “ben Elohim.” If Jews were to give that a seal of approval (which they cant and wont,) you would still have maninstream Christianity latching on to those ideas in service of traditional Christian ideas, and their errors.

            Thats why, if Yeshua was relevant at all, he can only be relevant for his ethics. Just my opinion.

          • Dina says:

            10th, if you don’t mind my asking:

            I’ve been thinking, if you find Jews so lacking in their worship and their relationship with Hashem, why do you worship with them, as you recently told Con? Can’t you find like-minded Christians who will uplift and inspire you, instead of disappoint you, with whom to worship? (Also still waiting on your reply to my question about your device.)

            Thanks!

          • 10th man says:

            “So, no then?”
            —(On his own; no, not infallible)—

            “In your opinion then, Yeshua being described as embodiment of Divine wisdom personified isn’t enough of a description? In what sense?”
            —(using one aspect of a person falls short when attempting to sum up their totality and is not especially specific to Y’shua, but to all complex beings)—

            “What I’m trying to ascertain is why you feel Yeshua is absolutely indispensable, from the standpoint that its somehow not ok for us to defend Judaism?”
            —(I don’t think modern Judaism is anymore defensible than Christianity as both claim a level inerrancy for their respective Texts which is easily refuted. (I DO believe in a lower level of inerrancy for both bodies of Text). Why is Y’shua indispensable? Historical evidence and current experiential evidence combined with his ethical Torah based teachings make Y’shua anything but irrelevant as Judaism puts it with a wave of a hand. “indispensable” – Y’shua’s own words opens this up to debate when he said ‘he was only called to to lost sheep of Israel’ and ‘it is not the well who need a physician, but the sick’. If I concede such a debate to mean Judaism doesn’t need Y’shua, they still condem themselves by trying to steal Y’shua from those who do need him)—

            “Deuteronomy 4 explicitly says not to worship the “whole host of heaven,” which would include anything like that.”
            —(Concerned Reader, you strike me as a person who strives to intellectually honest, so let’s get straight to the point on this. We both know there are different levels of worship and only one type of worship is reserved for Hashem. Just because another is worshiped in the most broad sense of the term doesn’t mean it is wrong unless someone or something is given worship that belongs to Hashem alone)—

            “….comparing Yeshua to the so called “angel of great council,” the Logos, and the captain of Hashem’s host, IE alleged Theophanies in the Tanakh.”
            —(all great speculations, but speculations nonetheless – Y’shua said; no one but the Father knows who he is. And still sadly centuries of blood have been spilt over such speculations. Which proves these were those Not following his words)—

            “Judaism has opposed normative traditional Christianity since its ascendance…..
            When rabbis were presented with Messianic candidates like….”
            —(I commend them for such, but it doesn’t make them right about everything nor can we ignore the thousands of Christians killed standing up for the exact same things)—

            “Consider that If the rabbis were indeed hellbent on controlling the Jewish world, they do a really terrible job at convincing their masses to follow Charismatic leaders…”
            —(Charismatic leaders are usually a threat to the status quo, which threatens power and control of those ruling, therefore typically Charismatic leaders are ignored, discredited, squashed or all of the above, unless they have the momentum to overcome such opposition)—

            “And yet, if you compare the authority structure of the Church and Synagogue, they are not even similar.”
            —(I disagree)—

            “No rabbi I’ve ever met claims to be a prophet.”
            —(they can’t because they have declared prophecy has ended – how’s that for squelching opposing voices even from Hashem Himself?)—

            “Think about it logically for a moment. If the rabbis wanted to cement their power, questioning would not be such a huge deal in Jewish education.”
            —(lol, can a leopard change its spots? Can a Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a Jew not question? – oddly enough this is not very true when it come to the laity questioning rabbis)—

            “True, once a halacha is decided, they say that is the rule you must follow, but beyond that, you don’t need obedience to even one rabbi”
            —(??? Who decided the Halacha in the first place?)— (rabbis)

            “My point here is, if you have dealt with rabbis being short with you regarding your belief in Yeshua, consider the centuries of horrible things done in that name. When I first came to the blog as a Jesus believer, I too was met with some attitude. However, when you think about the interactions, its clear why.”
            —(I used to not understand this behavior when I thought generally most all rabbis walked with Hashem and therefore would not fall into such human traps. But now I’ve come to know most rabbis as religious lawyers dealing in matters of law. So yes, I understand why they are short with me – we talk apples and oranges)—

            “So, even if you have a halachic Yeshua ideology, he’s not the focus of this blog.”
            —(forgive my crassness, but that is just stupid that a halachic Y’shua receives little to no attention with so many interested in such. What a tool to build bridges with – but we are not building bridges here, are we? (granted I have not read every article on this blog so maybe it is addressed, but from what I’ve read thus far, the animosity for Christianity is only paralleled by an equal animosity for Y’shua himself))—

          • Dina says:

            10th,

            I have a list of questions that I would greatly appreciate if you would take the time to answer. I don’t want to take up a lot of your time, so most of these questions require brief responses.

            1. If you find Jews lacking, why worship with them?
            2. What kind of device do you use to post comments on this blog?
            3. Have you ever reached out to Rabbi Skobac? He is a great person to talk to and I think you will find him courteous and respectful.

            I would be grateful if you could take the time, thanks!

  61. Concerned Reader says:

    10th man, we dont agree that much, because Jesus is not a messiah, an object of devotion to me.

  62. Dina says:

    Nikola, I am responding to your comment https://judaismresources.net/2017/08/02/the-doctoral-candidate-a-parable-by-jim/#comment-40213

    I’m sorry for taking so long. I got sucked into other conversations and simply forgot.

    The topic under discussion was your accusation that Orthodox Judaism represses other groups. I asked for substantiation and you offered an article on the Karaites. The article describes the actions of rabbis using the force of the law to stop Karaites from selling their slaughtered animals as kosher products and to prohibit intermarriage (in both cases they were unsuccessful).

    I would argue that this is not so much repression as actively fighting against false advertising. Orthodox Jews only eat kosher products that follow mainstream Orthodox rabbinic application of the kosher laws. They would be very upset to find out they had been eating meat packaged as kosher but really only according to Karaite law.

    There was a tremendous scandal in my hometown when a local butcher who had for years been selling chicken marked as kosher to the Orthodox community was in reality repackaging the much cheaper non-kosher chicken (non-kosher because of the method of slaughter) and then reselling them at the higher price of kosher chickens. He made a killing, no pun intended. But there was a huge uproar when he was found out. Is that repression? Or is that fairness?

    The overwhelming and vast majority of religious Jews in Israel are Orthodox. They have a right not to be mislead by false advertising concerning products they are buying. (The Israeli Supreme Court disagrees.)

    As for intermarriage, whatever the rabbis are agitating for is irrelevant because Jews are self-selecting. Secular Jews are not likely to meet–let alone, date–Karaite Jews. While the same is true for Orthodox Jews, they would also personally never consider a marriage to any non-Orthodox Jew unless they are leaving Orthodoxy–something no rabbi on the planet has the power to stop. It happens. Jews leave Orthodoxy with no impunity at a rate of approximately fifteen percent.

    Because we use different markers to determine who is a Jew (matrilineal descent for all other Jewish sects; patrilineal for Karaites), Karaites may not even be Jewish according to Jewish law, hence the resistance to validating their marriages to other Jews.

    Why Orthodox Jews would choose to repress a sect that represents a fraction of a percent of all Jews, a sect most Orthodox Jews have never even heard of, when there are other, larger sects much more threatening to Orthodox Judaism is a question you should consider when listening to the complaints of Karaites. Refusing to accept a group as legitimately following Judaism is simply not the same as repression.

    Furthermore, when an article presents only one side of a story, journalistic integrity has been compromised and the article cannot be trusted (this would not be a first for the Gray Lady). While Karaites are interviewed and quoted in the article, in both articles only a brief statement by a representative of the other side is presented. The sympathetic slant toward Karaites is so obvious, it ought to at least raise suspicions.

    Finally, in a free world, Jews cannot repress other Jewish groups even if they wanted to.

    As an Orthodox Jew, I do not hear of any repressive acts taken against other groups of Jews. In the United States where I live, Orthodox Jews have little clout, neither political nor religious.

    Therefore, it is simply untrue to say that Orthodox Jews repress other sects of Judaism.

  63. Dina says:

    Hi Nikola,

    Responding to your comment https://judaismresources.net/2017/08/02/the-doctoral-candidate-a-parable-by-jim/#comment-40064

    Again, another comment of yours I neglected to respond to. I wanted to talk about your statement that the Tanach is self-contained and no commentary is needed. I believe in another comment you also dismissed the oral tradition (correct me if I’m wrong).

    Suppose you are an observant Jew who believes the Torah is the divine word of God. How would you observe the following commandments:

    In Leviticus 23, we are enjoined to take the fruit of a beautiful tree. What fruit is that? Any fruit that you subjectively think its tree is beautiful? Cherry trees in bloom are very beautiful, can we use cherries?

    In that same chapter, we are told that on the tenth day of the seventh month we must afflict our souls or we will be cut off from the nation. I don’t want to be cut off from the nation. But how do I afflict my soul? Does listening to heavy metal all day count?

    The importance of Sabbath observance is emphasized through repetition. The gatherer of sticks was put to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. How did everyone know that gathering sticks counts as work? Why did Jeremiah keep stressing not carrying burdens on the Sabbath as was taught to our fathers when it isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Torah? If the penalty for transgressing the Sabbath is so high, how do I know, if I want to carry out God’s will, what is considered work? It would never have occurred to me that gathering sticks and carrying burdens (such as carrying a baby–that’s a type of burden, of course) is considered work. So how can I know?

    Deuteronomy 6 commands us to take the words Moses is teaching that day and tie them between our eyes as ornaments and tie them on our hands. How do you fulfill this commandment? Do we have to wear Torah scrolls on our foreheads and arms? All day? Part of the day? Sleep with them on?

    This is just a small example, but if you read the Torah carefully you will see that it is impossible to observe the commandments as written because they are too skimpy on details. Please realize that the Torah was taught to the people of Israel before it was inscribed into a book. The Torah is like the notes taken at a lecture. If you missed the lecture, borrowing someone’s notes won’t be enough. You’ll need that person to explain his shorthand account of the lecture to you if you want to pass the exam.

    To say the Torah is self-contained and needs no further explanation than what any reasonable person would contextually derive is a fallacy.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s