-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Yaakov on Podcast: Isaiah 1:1-9 LarryB on Anachronisms – excerpt f… Yaakov on Anachronisms – excerpt f… Jim on Anachronisms – excerpt f… Dina on Anachronisms – excerpt f… Archives
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
Categories
- Addressing Atheism
- Annelise
- Atonement
- Basic
- Bible Trial
- Correspondence
- Critique
- Debate Forum
- Faith Structure
- General
- History
- Holidays
- Isaiah 53
- Jim
- Judaism
- Messiah
- Oral Law
- Podcast
- Reflections on the Haftorah
- Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire
- Scripture
- The Charolite Faith
- The Righteous Gentile
- The Ultimate Truth
- Thomas
- Tzvi Jacobson
- Videos
Meta
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
Too true, too true…
Very good video rabbi B.
Thank you
My phariseefriend! Why didn’t you put your face on the video clip? It was your lecture, not Dr. Brown’s. I might have skipped this good video because the cover face on the clip looked like saying, “Freeze! and listen, i’m LAPD.”
As i played the video, someone appeared, saying like, “i have something to tell you and would you like to take time to reason with me? i’m NYCD (counselling department).”
What am I talking about? I just want to say that i like your face better.
Anyway, your testimony of your experience in yeshiva of never having lessons about Jesus or Christianity while the NT has so many lessons about Judaism and Israel is very powerful and convincing. Let me comment a couple of things in your presentation.
You said, “the Gospel of John teaches that the Jewish rejection to Jesus is because they are the children of darkness,” You might say like that, but there is a verse that clearly reveals the authentic reason: John 12:39-41
“Therefore they COULD NOT believe, because that Esaias said again,
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
These things said Esaias, when he saw his GLORY, and spake of him.”
John is not blaming the Jews; you see? they COULD NOT believe because it was God who blinded and hardened. Yeshua taught in parable in order for the Jews not to understand the secrets of the Kingdom. Why? Simple reason is this: they would treat him as a heretic and deliver him to the crucifixion.
The apostle Paul explains: “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.” 1 Corinthians 2:7-9
Gean Guk Jeon And is John 3:19-21 not the “true” message? Or John 8:44?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Brother, i believe both are true. The gospel of John may seem to be anti semitic but truth is the very opposite. If you bring any verse on the table, i could discuss with you.
The gospel of John is a unique book which needs a different lens to see the message. Same lens for the Synoptic gospels does not work for John’s gospel.
The first verse of John 1:1 becomes the backbone of the whole book; the Logos theology permeates throughout what Yeshua has said and done. John 3:19-21 is not an exception. Light is the word of God! Yeshua is talking about himself as the word of God, not as the Jewish carpenter in early 30s.
Both the Jews in that time and we of today often miss the intention of John. In order to understand 8:44, we gotta start with 8:30 which says “Even as he spoke, many put their faith in HIM” WOOPS! THAT WAS NOT YESHUA’S INTENTION! since John chapter 8 is already toward the third passover during Yeshua’s ministry, he had to headstart hardening the hearts of the Jews so that he would be rejected and delivered by them to the crcifixion.
However, manyJews put their faith in HIM! — Now, to the Jews who believed HIM, Yeshua directs their admiration to other. He directs it to his TEACHING (TRUTH: THE WORD OF GOD) in 8:31~32. What happened at the end? “They picked up stones to stone him”(8:59) This was Yeshua’s intention: the hardening of the Jews as Isaiah 6:9-10 prophesied.
8:44 doesn’t say that the Jews are children of devil. Why? If he really meant it, Peter must be Satan (Mt 16:23). Yeshua is not talking about themselves. He is talking about Their words and thoughts are from (or on the side of) devil. NIV translated “you belong to your father, the devil” i believe this is a great mistake. The Greek text says literally “you from the father the devil.” In other words, they are lying; they speak not from truth but from devil which is the father of liar. Why? They said they are Abraham’s descendents and have never been slaves of anyone (v.33) is this true? No. They once have been slaves in Egypt and now under occupation of Roman empire and also slaves to sin!
They said “Abraham is our father”(v.39)
And also said “the only father we have is God himself”(v.41b) Are they speaking out of two sides of mouth?
When we read between the lines of John, we must focus on the WORDS of Yeshua and the words of Jews rather than on Yeshua himself or Jews themselves.
I hope this helps.
Gean, a clear message from a clear head doesn’t require a person to read between the lines.
John’s gospel “appears to be” Anti Semitic because it contains all the misrepresentation of Jews within it to make people mistrust the Jews. IE it is antisemitic.
If we cant read John for what John simply says, what the heck is the point of the book? I know the book has a historical context, that you don’t have to read it in an antisemitic way, but the book lends itself to antisemitic readings without much work, and that is the whole problem with the book.
Was John incapable of giving us his interpretation of logos theology without bashing the Jews?
They said “Abraham is our father”(v.39)
And also said “the only father we have is God himself”(v.41b) Are they speaking out of two sides of mouth?
You just accused John’s hypothetical Jews of double talk. Does the book not work without this? Did John need to write that way? Did he need to interact with his theological opponents this way?
Think that through carefully. Rather than excuse John’s gospel as a mysterious text that needs certain lenses, maybe you should be asking why the author couldn’t say what he needed to say without accusation.
Where do Jews say the only father we have is God? Prove that the Jews have such a theology. Abraham is our father literally and God is our Father metaphorically.
Sister Dina, thanks for the comment.
I don’t know much about Jewish theology, i am still learning from Tanakh and N.T. and this blog how the Jews have thought of God. My desire for further study will be in this area of Jewish thought, mysticism and Kabbalah. All i know is that the Jews in that time in that land stated the sentence to Yeshua.
“Abraham is our father literally” Yes, Yeshua also admit it; “I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word”
Yeshua saw the inner hatred to kill their fellow brother Yeshua, that was contrary to what the Torah taught and it proves that their words and action does not reflect identity of the children of Abraham. I believe Yeshua escalated the hatred and hardened their hearts so that they would desire to stone. In the end, the plan of Yeshua was achieved at the cross. God used His people- both Yeshua and the Jews to bring atonement for humanity.
Have you ever evaluate the accusation and claims of Jesus? The guy had no tact and loved to call people Vipers and sons of the devil. What kind of reception did he want, especially that he did not know the guys he accused, but vaguely blamed all the Pharisee, Sadducee, priest, teachers of the law (basically everybody around) and saying that they were hypocrites, liars and all sorts of insults. I would guess that it is normal afterward for anybody to have resentment, especially that he thought he was the only one always right, and blames other people not to get his vague parables, which he did in purpose for people not to get the meaning… Really frustrating, I would not know many who would patiently follow the fellow!!! Also, he called his friends Satan and clearly told his disciples that they did not have any sort of understanding!!!
Your parable of school X and school Y is also thought provoking in a good sense!
School X (Xristianity) is turning back on the track, cofessing that they have been blinded to the importance of Heart (Israel and Torah) and repenting before the followers of School Y (Yisroel?).
I strongly believe that not only the Jews but also Christians are blinded to the things God has prepared for us who love HIM. (1 Cor. 2:9)
Gean, once again, you missed the point of what the rabbi said.
The fact that the New Testament book of John claims that G-d blinded or hardened the people is the whole problem.
If we ask the question “on the whole does G-d harden the heart of righteous, or of wicked men in scripture?”
The answer you would get is that in Torah,
G-d hardens a wicked heart. He doesnt make the righteous to stumble, or hearden a righteous man.
The only other time Torah says that G-d hardened a heart, it was the Pharoah’s heart.
Do you get the feeling that Pharoah was a good guy who you (as a believer) should have an equal or measured conversation with or emulate?
Isnt it more likely that Pharoah is seen as a bad guy by most people who read scripture? Isnt it likely that you would think “dont be like the Egyptians?”
Whatever YOU BELIEVE the intent of John’s gospel author was is not relevant.
The author of that book portrayed the Jews as blind, disobedient. Self seeking, and as wicked IN MANY INSTANCES.
ONE VERSE DOESNT UNDER CUT THAT OVERALL MESSAGE!
If you have to look at one verse and say “Aha! See what the “true” intent was?” Its manifestly clear that the plain intent of the author was the opposite.
Ask yourself honestly, did the early Christians let the plain meaning of the Torah teach them?
Or did they let the words of their master Jesus carry more weight than the Torah’s plain teaching?
Judging by the apostles own words, Jesus had to “open their eyes to the scriptures.” IE what Torah says plainly was not enough to point to Jesus, he had to offer secret sauce interpretations to make his students see.
Remember your history. Even during the days of Paul, in his epistles, Paul drew distinctions between a law oriented gospel, and an observance free one that he taught for the gentiles.
Paul did not see teaching Jewish observances to gentiles as an asset, or as important, but as a hinderance to the non Jew’s spiritual development.
Paul wanted his Churches to know grace, not theTorah law, or the Jewish religion. Torah observance among Christians died by the start of the 4th century.
As a direct result of gospel teaching, Christians have never saught to have an equal discussion of what Jewish religion means to Jews themselves as they practice it.
Saying that G-d closed Israel’s eyes, is the 1st step to plugging the ears to what Jews actually have to say about their own beliefs.
Brother CR, did you say, “ONE VERSE DOESNT UNDER CUT THAT OVERALL MESSAGE!”?
God’s hardening of the ears and hearts of His people in Isaiah 6:9-10 is
THE MOST FREQUENTLY QUOTED VERSE OF TANAKH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
and the latter part of Yeshua’s ministry is filled with this secret task if you look carefully with an open mind! That’s why Mark 4:13 claims that this parable of the sower which is the direct fulfilment of Isaiah 6:9-10 (Mt 13:14) IS THE BASIC 101 PARABLE FOR THE WHOLE PARABLES OF YESHUA! The key to understand the overall message of the N.T. is found in this one verse of Isaiah.
Gean, if you would read Isaiah in context, you would realize that this prophecy was already fulfilled during the first exile. Jesus took that verse totally out of context for his own purpose. That’s call deceit! How do I know that? Because of the answer on Isaiah 6:11…
Then I said, “For how long, Lord?”
And he answered:
“Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
until the Lord has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
When were the cities ruined and without inhabitants? At the first exile.
Brother RT, thanks for your timely comment. I agree it was already fulfilled during the first exile. Also, think about this verse: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.” Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
The word of God runs the history. After Yeshua’s parable to fulfill Isaiah 6:9-10, the samething happened in Jerusalem and cities in Judah in AD 70 and people got scattered and the land has been trampled by the gentiles as Isaiah prophesied and also as Yeshua prophesied (Mt 23:38, 24:2, etc)
NOW is the time for God to restore ISRAEL, the land, the Torah, and the people.
And in the midst of this restoration process, there falls unique revelations of God unto the Jewish people and Christians worldwide about their unity in what God has done through Yeshua.
Hi Gean, I don’t see the point of Ecc 1:9 here, or in other word, how can you ripe a verse out of the context to fit your theory? I could arrive with this verse to prove that Joseph Smith was a second Jesus, because it needs to have been done before and we need to be reproducible to be true. How I could simple use Ecc 1:9 to prove Jesus is a lie. When was there ever another man born of a virgin who is the messiah who will saved the world from their sins? Or I can use this verse to prove you that cars existed in the time of David, it could not be new, isn’t it when the first person invented it?
According to the Torah, the destiny of the nation Israel will be decided according to the same decrees in the Law of God: obedience leads to blessing and disobedience to curse.
So, can we not see the Babylonian exile and Roman exile as the result of what God has promised? Different time and different enemy but same God and same promise to the same people.
You assumed that the disobedience was to the fact that they did not accept Jesus. Maybe it could be the opposite; to many people accepted the foreign god Jesus, bringing a curse on them by the Romans. You are trying to judge G-d’s reasoning, when His ways are higher than ours.
“Maybe it could be the opposite”
Yes brother!
Roman destruction might have been brought by disobedience to the Torah in the land of Israel. It seems that What Yeshua warned is many hypocritical and religious behaviors without justice and love and faith in God and fellow Jews.
Who cares about what a guy in the first century thought? Your focus is all wrong. Think about it, most Jews in the first century had no clue who Jesus was! Most Jew were not following their star speaker on CNN. You could have passed next to Jesus, and not even noticed him. He was really just another guy preaching in the corner of Jerusalem, so really his opinion and his teaching were not that important!
“NOW is the time for God to restore ISRAEL, the land, the Torah, and the people.”
did jesus have secular israel in mind when he said this ,
“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit”
the truth is that the christian matthew thought god will replace judaism with christian judaism , but matthew, jesus and christianity is wrong because today secular israel which does not abide by torah is governing israel.
Gean, to be blunt, I don’t care 1 iota if that is the most quoted verse in the New Testament. The New Testament claims the Torah as the source of its authority, so it must fit the overall message of the Torah. If it does not, then nobody is obligated to believe in it.
As RT said, that verse in context refers to the 1st exile. John using it, or for you to use it to excuse the author calling the Jews blind is not good.
Why don’t you respond to the actual points of issue that I raised? I even compared the gospel of John’s usage of this concept to that of another second temple group for you to reference.
John doesn’t call Jews blind in order to tell them how to be better Jews in the eyes of the Torah, he calls them blind because they wont accept John’s theological formulae about Jesus, and that is an immense difference.
“What is the truth? according to Yeshua, the Word of God (Tanakh) is the truth (John 17:17)”
but in mark 4:12 jesus says that he speaks the way he does so that his hearers don’t understand him. jesus goes to a people he think has hard hearts and he deliberately communicates in a way they will not understand.
”
In Isaiah 6, the agent of fattening the hearts and weighing down of the ears of people of God is the prophet of God. Whereas in 2 Tessalonians, the agent in the last days is the Satan and the objects are not people of God but wicked and secular people who disobey the the word of God.”
when 2 thesollonians was written people were thinking that the last days were coming very soon.
isn’t it the fact that god will suppress the “seeing” of disbelieving jews indefinitely?
jesus deliberately communicated to avoid being understood and through satan god will continue to suppress the “seeing” of the disbelieving jews, right?
Mr. Heathcliff, those who are to be judged in 2 Thessalonians are more likely to be non-Jews because they are described as lawless, rejecting the love of the truth(the word of God), and taking pleasure in unrigteousness.
Revelations describe them in the similar way; “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still, and he that is holy, let him be holy still”(Rev. 22:11) These indicate of God’s forsaking of the lawless people by allowing Satan’s workings in the last days.
Also, please look carefully which time period the author says of God’s allowance for Satan to work and sending of strong delusion of them: AFTER the Anti Christ who exalts himself who sits in the temple to be worshiped as God ! Not in 1st century!
Yes, you are right that people were thinking of the eminence of the last day, but the author admonished not to be shaken nor to be troubled (2:2) BECAUSE the LAST DAY has not come yet! So, if you read 2nd chapter of 2 Thessalonians in verse order, you will easily find out that God’s hardening of the wicked people will not happen in 1st centrury nor for the past 2 millennium.
Mr Heathcliff
I thought the truth was the J man. “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6).
Brother Larry, Shalom.
I believe that you know how John records the 7 sayings of Yeshua’s “I am” sayings. The bread of life (6:35), the light of the world (8:12), the door (10:9), the good shepherd (10:11), the true vine(15:1), the resurrection and the life (11:25-26) the way the truth the life (14:6) . All these are symbolic expressions of the Word of God.
“Mr. Heathcliff, those who are to be judged in 2 Thessalonians are more likely to be non-Jews because they are described as lawless, rejecting the love of the truth(the word of God), and taking pleasure in unrigteousness.”
here is the text
And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is ALREADY at WORK, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus[d] will destroy[e] with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, 10 and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing , because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12 so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.
the signs have already preceded the lawless one .
are you saying that the jews who reject jesus and continue to reject jesus are not under any powerful delusion and are loving the truth ?
“Revelations describe them in the similar way; “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still, and he that is holy, let him be holy still”(Rev. 22:11)”
gean, can you tell me how revelations describe the jews who reject jesus?
”
These indicate of God’s forsaking of the lawless people by allowing Satan’s workings in the last days.”
the signs of the “last day” already were taking place in the eyes of the writer of Thessalonians.
”
Also, please look carefully which time period the author says of God’s allowance for Satan to work and sending of strong delusion of them: AFTER the Anti Christ who exalts himself who sits in the temple to be worshiped as God ! Not in 1st century!”
but the signs precede the coming .
“Yes, you are right that people were thinking of the eminence of the last day, but the author admonished not to be shaken nor to be troubled (2:2) BECAUSE the LAST DAY has not come yet!”
but the signs were already there for the author.
can you prove that jewish REJECTION was not one of those signs.
” So, if you read 2nd chapter of 2 Thessalonians in verse order, you will easily find out that God’s hardening of the wicked people will not happen in 1st centrury nor for the past 2 millennium.”
where is your proof “will not happen in 1st century…” when the author clearly is in a time where he thinks falsehood is apparent ?
the text seems to be saying that god will keep the suppression continuous
The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, 10 and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing , because they refused to love the truth and so be saved
“the passage in isaiah 6 has nothing to do with the general purpose of parables. it deals with a concrete historical situation and period. any dullness in perception is supposed to be removed after the destruction of the land . jesus decontextualizes the passage by removing it from its originally intended relevance to the destruction of jerusalem in the 6th century bce. jesus ignores that the terminus for any dullness was ‘ until cities lie waste without inhabitant….’which happened in the sixth century bce. not only does jesus insist that such divine suppression of their perception continues into this day, but now he sees himself as the agent of that suppression in their perception. more importantly , jesus here makes the consequences indicated in the original text much worse. in isaiah , God acted so that they would be healed, but only until they were destroyed by the babylonians . jesus continues that suppression indefinitely (2 thess 2.9-12)
Brother Mr. heathcliff, thanks for the good point.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness”
What is the truth? according to Yeshua, the Word of God (Tanakh) is the truth (John 17:17). If we read a couple of verses earlier, “They” who might be damned and have pleasure in unrighteousness means the people of lawless- (anomia; anti- Torah).
As the history comes to the judgment day, people will be deceived by the works of Satan, and they willingly follow the lawlessness. Isn’t that true? Otherwise, the Bible will not call it “judgment day.” There should be some people who will be judged and we see them very active in our days.
The context of Isaiah 6 and that of 2 Thessalonians 2 seem very different from each other. In Isaiah 6, the agent of fattening the hearts and weighing down of the ears of people of God is the prophet of God. Whereas in 2 Tessalonians, the agent in the last days is the Satan and the objects are not people of God but wicked and secular people who disobey the the word of God.
hey gean, is secular state of israel damned ? or do you worship a god who is not impartial?
Brother CR, you are right God hardened (חזק) Pharaoh’ s heart,
Whereas God fattened (שמן) the hearts of His people in Isaiah 6.
Gean, we see that jesus goes to the jews whom he perceives as having “hard hearts”
he uses language which withholds important information , if he revealed that information they would have turned and be forgiven, so i don’t know what it means by “hard hearts”
god adds to the problem because god sends powerful delusion .
if your god was impartial , then he would condemn the jews for rejecting him like he would continue to condemn the non-jews, but you seem to be arguing that jews who reject jesus and continue to reject jesus are not condemned .
so god only sends powerful delusion to non-jews and continues indefinite suppression on them ? is this impartial?
Yeshua revealed the secrets of the kingdom of heaven only to those Jewish disciples, at the same time hidden it to the eyes of majority of the Jewish crowd (Mt.13:11). Why? the answer is found in 1 Corinthians 2:7-10;
“But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.” God used Yeshua’s parable- mashal, or חִידָה (difficult sayings or riddles in proverbs 1:6) to hide his authority of his preaching and truth of messiahship so that people would deliver him to the cross to fulfill God’s plan.
“hard hearts” would more likely to be wicked hearts as CR explained before,
but Yeshua did not “hardened- hazak” like God did to Pharaoh,
rather he “fattened- shaman” according to Isaiah 6.
That’s why in Yeshua’s parable of the sower, the focus is not the HEARER’s attitude (the response of the Jews to the gospel), the focus is how the SOWER throw the seed.
The secret message is this, i believe; why the sower (Yeshua) threw the seed (gospel) unto the ROAD? The sower of the 1st century is an experienced farmer knowing exactly where the seed should fall but he delieberately threw the seed on the ROAD- actually, Yeshua’s teaching in parables itself made their heart like ROAD (imagine modern day asphalt- oily and fatty road) so that he FATTENED the hearts of the Jews.
“you seem to be arguing that jews who reject jesus and continue to reject jesus are not condemned” Yes! How can God condemn His own covenant people whom he blinded to bring atonment for humanity? The Pharisee Paul said “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,[fn] a member of the tribe of Benjamin.” (Romans 11:1)
Who is anti Christ who should be condemned?
Listen to John2:22 (i find the most English translations failed to convey the meaning of the original greek text). Let me translate literally:
“who is the liar if not the one denying that Jesus is not Christ
this is the antichrist the one denying the father and the son”
This means that those who deny that Jesus is not Christ are NOT antichrist
but antiChrist are those who deny the father (the firstborn son, the Jews) and the son (gentile christians). John emphasizes the unity and love between these two people group.
2 John 1:6-7 ; “Love means doing what God has commanded us, and he has commanded us to love one another, just as you heard from the beginning. I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came[fn] in a REAL BODY. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.” The Jews are the ones who testify to the historical Jesus who came in a REAL BODY!
According to the NT, those who are to be judged with anti Christ spirit are spiritist, gnostism, and anti nominianism (Anti Torah) who teaches the faith without action, atonement without repentance and grace without obedience, etc.
I hope this helps,
It becomes iffy when a particular group of “Chosen” individual believe they have a “secret and hidden wisdom” that nobody else have. You can’t argue any logic with individual who believe they have special secret knowledge from the Most High, whichever true or not. If true, then you lake the “hidden” knowledge and cannot gain it by reasonable means. If false, you can’t argue them out of their foolish way, as they believe themselves superior t you! Vanity of vanity as Solomon said!
Brother RT, Solimon also said ;
“It is glory of God to conceal word
to search out word is glory of kings”(Proverbs 25:2)
God works in this world for his glory
Then He must have hidden lots of word!!
If you want a useless battle of verses taken out of context, let me quote that one “And he wept”. Sorry, wrong one “The hidden things belong to G-d”.
Gean, what did jesus identify Peter as when Peter thought Jesus was going to be military messiah ? He called him “Satan”
if Peter who received private explanations and was still identified as “Satan” what about those who received parables but meaning was kept hidden from them? These would also be a people who were thinking about military messiah. The jesus in mark does not want the rejectors to be forgiven.
According to mark then, the idea of military messiah was satanic delusion.
Gean, repentance means to turn. To turn away from the bad behavior that one used to do, and to act with mended behavior.
The Church has not really repented, it has reinterpreted. The Church has not confessed wrongdoing, it has merely said “Oh, ok, so Torah is sort of important, but Jesus is still central to proper spiritual expression.”
That’s not Teshuva.
You said:
“Light is the word of God! Yeshua is talking about himself as the word of God, not as the Jewish carpenter in early 30s.”
Christian commentaries disagree with you here. Jesus and the Logos are one person, the reflection of G-d’s being. To say that the Logos is not the carpenter from the 30s is to misinterpret John’s entire gospel.
Texts that apply only to G-d in Tanakh are applied to Jesus by New Testament authors. You are going against the stream of the book if you want to say that personal acceptance of Jesus is not the author’s intent.
“Both the Jews in that time and we of today often miss the intention of John. In order to understand 8:44, we gotta start with 8:30 which says “Even as he spoke, many put their faith in HIM” WOOPS! THAT WAS NOT YESHUA’S INTENTION!”
If the original hearers of John in that time could not understand what he plainly told them, in a book that those original hearers transmitted to us, why should a later reader’s interpretation carry more weight?
“You are going against the stream of the book if you want to say that personal acceptance of Jesus is not the author’s intent”
It seems that you have John20:31 in your mind; “but THESE are written that you may believe that Yeshua us the Messiah the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his NAME”
Take a look at two capitalized words;
1. What is “these”? The whole book? No. The signs Yeshua did in front of his disciples! The preceding verse says this:” Yeshua did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book” but THESE (these signs Yeshua did in the presence of his disciples..) are written…
In the gospel of John, 7 signs and 7 “i am” sayings are purposefully connected to show the readers that Yeshua’s sayings are the sayings of God, and his signs show the fulfilment of Tanakh.
In this verse, John is not talking about the purpose of his entire gospel, but he is talking about the purpose of his selective recordings of only those sayings and signs that are related to the Jewish festivals and customs in Tanakh!!
That is why the gospel did not end there. There is another chapter! (Ch.21!) The last chapter contains another ridiculous signs of catching 153 fish but not included in 7 signs which arw mentioned up until chapter 20. Why?
Since catching lots of fish has nothing to do with the Jewish festivals and customs!
I believe Chapter 21 shows the real purpose of the gospel. Israel’s Messiah’s love toward his people and our responsibility to live one another.
I hope this helps in your reading of John’s gospel.
No Gean, I don’t just have a single verse in mind, I have in mind the whole tone of John’s gospel!
You cant pick a verse and say, “I think this is the key to its real meaning,” as you are doing when the whole thrust of the book is that “light has come into the world and the darkness has not understood it. When the light leaves the world, nobody will be able to work”
As I said, this book is written in a similar style to a Greek rhetorical exercise, where the party who disagrees with the author “John” is vilified.
Now, we might have room for a discussion about precisely why the vilification occurs, but that is at best only conjecture, however well intended. We cannot ignore however that this vilification occurs.
The opponents of Jesus (not just John’s hypothetical Jews, but also hypothetical Christians with whom the author disagrees) are vilified in his rhetoric.
It seems to me that you are the person who is requesting that I bend the book to your theological analysis of it. I will explain below why I dont find your reading convincing.
I already know the general context of the book, and approximately when it was written, because scholars have shown us.
The gospel of John was written sometime in the 90s CE that’s after the temple’s destruction. The split between the Synagogue, and the nascent Jesus movement is already heavily in process at this point. John’s community identifies Jesus’ person with the Logos of G-d, (a concept explored in the works of Philo of Alexandria) which John’s community has expanded on BEYOND PHILO’S INTENT by identifying the Logos with Jesus.
We know that according to the author of John’s gospel, nobodies Torah observance is deemed useful. We know this because Jesus says to both the Jews, and to the Samaritans as well, (who lack pharisaic interpretations and presuppositions, in their reading of Torah) that they do not understand what G-d has taught them, so their wisdom will be given to strangers.
John’s community believes that Jesus is the agency through whom G-d made the world, and believes Jesus’ word is the highest embodiment of truth, even higher than the Torah of Moses. Hence, Jesus, (as opposed to Israel) is called the way, truth, life, true vine, etc.
John 15:25 accuses the people of hating Jesus “without reason.” The author also frequently places this phrase in the mouth of Jesus, “is it not written in ((YOUR LAW”)) so as to distinguish Jesus from the Jews.
Your exegesis of John hinges on the idea that we should separate the actual teacher from Nazareth from the concepts like Logos, Name, truth, bread of life, etc. which you see as euphemisms for Torah observance, and the law of Moses.
The problem is that it is clear from the text of John that these concepts are not euphemism’s for Torah or observance according to John himself, because the text continually distinguishes Jesus from the Torah.
If your reading were correct, the author would not need to berate Sadducees, Pharisees, and Samaritans as being blind and unknowing. If all of those groups indeed do not understand what G-d wants, then this simply means in context that people who observe the Torah (in any fashion practiced in Jesus’ day) do not understand what G-d wants.
Do you see what I’m saying here? Jesus in John looks at ALL the groups of Torah observant people, whatever group they belong to, and says “you don’t get it.”
The gospel of John uses the phrase “the Jews” 71 times, in contrast to that phrase being used only a handful of times in other gospels, and it doesn’t distinguish Jews by their sects as the other gospels do, with the exception of the Samaritan woman.
The author generalizes Jews as a homogeneous entity, and elevates Jesus above them on several occasions.
Con, I’d like to add one more thing:
If John was written in the year 90 CE, it was written 20 years after the Jews were slaughtered on a massive scale by the Romans, their temple destroyed, the survivors exiled, sold as slaves, or suffered other atrocities.
What kind of person writes a book vilifying a downtrodden people? What kind of person does that?
Oh! I forgot to comment on “NAME”
John’s recording of selective signs wan to say that we have eternal life NOT in him- the historical Jewish rabbi Jesus;
But in his NAME- ישוע which is “Salvation”
In other words, if we see John’s recordings of signs logically and faithfully, we could believe that we have eternal life in Salvation of God who saves His own people by speaking of His Word.
Gean, I’m not sure if you are aware that John’s gospel is written in a style of ancient Greek biography in the tradition of Greek Rhetoric.
Rhetoric does not care about the facts as they are on the ground, but cares mainly about persuasion by any means possible. In Greek rhetoric the objective is to make your opponents look as dumb as possible, and to make your position appear as the most logically sound.
So, John’s descriptions of “the Jews” fit squarely within that rhetorical tradition. In the gospel, notice that the only “wisdom” comes out of Jesus’ mouth, while the disciples, and the Jews as a whole are treated by the author of the book as the foolish people who “just don’t get it.”
This may have been a common form of writing in the 1st century among Romans, in the tradition of Roman and Greek rhetoric, but its not a Jewish way to write a book.
For example, here is a contrast in the form of another debate between Jews.
if you read the Dead Sea Scroll document 4qmmt, its clear that the sectarians at Qumran don’t agree with other Jews, especially not with the priests in Jerusalem. The people at Qumran even call the temple priests, “those of the lot of Belial” IE a second temple near equivalent of “the devil.”
Seems similar to the New Testament right?
HOWEVER, the sectarians argue with the other Jews with their legal opinions, and with their interpretations of the law. THEY LET THEIR HALACHA SPEAK, NOT THEIR OPINION OF ANOTHER JEW’S CHARACTER.
The New Testament by contrast handles ALL OF ITS theological opponents (both Jewish and other Christian opponents) with character assassination.
When Paul is speaking against Judaizers for example, he makes it a personal fight. He doesn’t look to the law dispassionately and say “Torah agrees with me.”
Brother CR, thanks again for bringing your expert knowledge of comparative religion; sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesnt. The main subjects of our debates on the table are Hebrew and Christian Bibles, not commentaries or documents full of opinions.
You said, “The people at Qumran even call the temple priests, “those of the lot of Belial” IE a second temple near equivalent of “the devil.” Is this their letting halacha speak, or their opinion with character assassination?
Once Yeshua taught how the people of God must feed each other by this parable and see how he let Tanakh speak; “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
See how he let the Torah speak:
“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW? HOW DO YOU READ?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this DO, and thou shalt LIVE.” (Luke 10:25-28)
As you well pointed out, as far as i know, Paul never said “Torah agrees with me”
His concern was not if Torah agrees with me; he concern was whether he agrees with Torah!
“ircumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless” (Philippians 3:6)
“The word of God runs the history. After Yeshua’s parable to fulfill Isaiah 6:9-10, the same thing happened in Jerusalem and cities in Judah in AD 70 and people got scattered and the land has been trampled by the gentiles as Isaiah prophesied and also as Yeshua prophesied (Mt 23:38, 24:2, etc)”
Gean, anyone can make the Torah say anything they want to if they followed your line of reasoning in this way.
The Roman exile is not like the Babylonian exile. Many buildings from that time still stand, (such as the temple mount,) and Jews were still in the northern part of Israel as late as the 2nd-3rd century working on the Mishna. The Roman emperor Julian even attempted to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. So, its not really a valid comparison.
You still have not addressed why the author of John was incapable of teaching his doctrine about Jesus without accusing Jews of being blind. Jews were not blind, and are not blind. Jesus has not done the things the Messiah was clearly supposed to, and that’s why he is not accepted.
Gean, none of that stuff has anything whatsoever to do with the Torah.
The Messiah (as defined by the Torah) is just a normal human ruler who has sins of his own to atone for, just as king David did.
Isaiah 53 10-11 for example clearly says “when he makes his soul a guilt offering, IE an Asham, he shall have a son and many heirs.”
Isaiah 53 refers to the righteous remnant of Israel (the preceding chapters show us that this is true because Israel is plainly identified as the servant in earlier chapters,) and even if you want to say its about the king Messiah, its clear that the servant is not 100% guiltless because of the mention of a guilt offering. After all, King David is also called a righteous man after G-d’s own heart, but he was hardly guiltless.
The issue is that the New Testament tradition allegorizes these verses from Isaiah to fit their own personal contemporary theological presuppositions that are not mentioned in the Torah text.
(The New Testament chooses to read verses from Isaiah non literally when they dont need to be read this way,) so as to make the heirs of the one spoken of a metaphor used to refer to the Church, and also to make the messiah himself into THE guilt offering, as opposed to being about someone who offers such an offering to G-d, so that he sees literal offspring.
There is no justification for the Christian allegorical reading in the text. The plain meaning suggests that the servant (whether the messiah or the righteous remnant,) wil confess his guilt, and therefore see offspring.
Jesus had no children.
I mention the exegesis of those verses because the Messiah doesn’t forgive sins, only G-d the father alone forgives sins, and he has no need of killing anybody as a sacrifice in order to forgive those sins. He even says explicitly that he doesnt kill the children for the sins of their fathers, and vice versa, and that the guilt of the guilty is on his own head.
In judaism, Satan is like a heavenly prosecuter who does G-d’s bidding, (read the book of Job, its the only book in Tanakh that actually mentions Satan.)
The Christian Bible has relied on thoroughly extra biblical ideas about Satan, not found in Tanakh, and so Jews do not accept those ideas.
I dont mean to sound rude, but your explanations of what the Christian Bible says will not help you gain any acceptance for Yeshua on the blog for that reason.
As I said, The Christian Bible is building doctrine out of things that you cannot find in the pages of the Tanakh itself.
To find those notions of sin, fallen angels, etc. as expounded by Christian authors, you have to go to books that neither Judaism, nor Christianity accepts asauthoritative.
If John was written in the year 90 CE, it was written 20 years after the Jews were slaughtered on a massive scale by the Romans, their temple destroyed, the survivors exiled, sold as slaves, or suffered other atrocities.
What kind of person writes a book vilifying a downtrodden people? What kind of person does that?
My guess would be someone who is sharing in that same kind of suffering and is desperately trying to get the heat off of themselves, and off of their group.
I think someone would write those horrible things in horrible circumstances. Not saying its right, but I could see sectarian invective being extremely high when John was written.
Remember Dina, the book of John relies on rhetoric. It isn’t trying to be an impartial book, its trying to make Christianity look right, and Judaism look wrong, and it also has the job of making the two faiths look entirely diffferent and incompatible, regardless of thr evidence on the ground that they were not yet entirely distinct.
It is impirtant to note that both Jews and Christians faced Persecution under the Roman emperor Domition during this time that started in about 81 CE. So, both Jews and Christians as communities were suffering together in many cases, probably for overlapping reasons.
This suffering was probably intensified all the more because its not clear at this time whether the Romans actually saw Christianity as a distinct different religion than Judaism at this point.
All the Romans seem to think about Christianity is that it was a pernicious Jewish superstition spreading through their empire.
Whether Chriatian or Jewish at this point, Romans only saw Jews, or in their minds, traitorous gentiles, who were betraying Roman ideals 20 years after a horrible war.
In other words, neither community is winning in this time period, nor were they entirely seperate, even though both sides were trying to distinguish themselves from the other.
For example, after the temple’s destruction, a tax was imposed on Jews (for the temple of Jupiter that was built,) and until Christians had been seen as seperate, both groups would have been paying that tax, Jews as well as Jewish Christians, until the Christians petitioned to be seen as seperate, at which time Christianity is totally illegal.
We know that persecution was probably sporadic, as neither group gives concrete historical examples of strong persecution, but we can see that ideologically, there is lots of animosity.
That’s exactly the point, Con. If the writer was someone who would take out his own pain on someone else (your charitable reading) or a vicious hater who would beat someone when they’re down (my uncharitable reading), how could it be divinely inspired?
But where does one draw the line vis someone’s sins when determining their level of inspiration? Thats a slippery slope. Balaam was “inspired” and yet he was a bad human being.
Personally, I wrote what I wrote in interest of understanding accurately that gospel’s historical circumstances. I could care less if its inspired or not, i just care about what can be known.
I’m using the person’s own words to judge, but I take your point. I know you’re not concerned with whether the book of John is inspired or not but Gean is—and he’s the one who needs to face the fact that instead of offering hope and comfort to a suffering and downtrodden people, John offers hate. The Jewish people has paid a heavy price for his vicious invective, and even if the author didn’t mean for that to happen he has to accept at least some responsibility.