Who is the Messiah?
Boyarin wraps up his arguments by telling his readers that the followers of Jesus did not “invent” the idea of a divine savior, but rather that they drew this idea from the well-springs of Jewish thought that was current in their times. Boyarin argues that the Jewish concept of Messiah as it was understood in the generations preceding Jesus included, or at least allowed for, a second divine figure that is to suffer and die (TJG, pg. 160). The followers of Jesus simply applied these ancient Jewish teachings to Jesus of Nazareth, but they did not invent these teachings.
Aside from the fact that Boyarin ignores the evidence of the Christain Scriptures which clearly indicate that Jesus’ followers did NOT expect Jesus to suffer and die, this after they had positively identified him as the Messiah, Boyarin has also missed the heart and soul of the…
View original post 886 more words
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
I recently had a conversation with a leader in the Messianic movement about Boyarin’s theories and I pointed out that if they 1) believe in a divine messiah and 2) push the notion that J*sus was Moshiach ben Yosef (as they do), then, in essence, they have just have opened themselves up to expand their “godhead.”
Because if J*sus arose in bodily form and will be coming back, then he will have to have a cousin from the tribe of David to who will become Moshiach ben David…
Walla! Two “divine” Moshiachs and an ever-expanding “godhead”…
And who’s to stop it at a three or four? Why not ten?
The Messianics work so hard to find texts that they can somehow manipulate to “prove” that Judaism has allowed room for worship of multiple deities. But none of their texts are graphic and on the scale of credibility — when pitted against the graphic text of the Tanach that insists that G-d is not a man and that He is one — they fail dismally. It’s a game of smoke and mirrors. They try to make up convoluted theories that right verses out of context that could offer some sort of “support” for their claims and hope that people will overlook that which is right in front of their noses…
A made a few typos there. Of course, I meant tribe of Yehudah from whence David came.
Jesus is the Messiah, True Bread of Life, who WAS-IS and IS to come, I AM HE, the Son of God, raised from the Dead, descendent of David. The Testimony of the Father, Amen
Bible819, Aaron,
What is the purpose of a comment such as the one above to which I am responding? Is it merely to “troll” the blog, as the kids say? Mere assertion without argument does not contribute to the conversation at all.
Imagine this scenario: Mormon missionaries have become more aggressive in their efforts to convert Christians to members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. You have steadfastly resisted their efforts and have undertaken to show their belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet is unfounded. In your efforts to counter the Mormon missionary, you establish a website on which you bring proof from the “New Testament” that Mormon teaching is not supported by the foundational Christian documents. In response to your arguments, a missionary posts a comment, not countering your argument but merely reiterating his faith in the prophecy of Joseph Smith. What would you think of his comment? Would you not think that his comment did not contribute to the conversation? Would you not agree that his mere assertion does not make his belief true?
So, I ask again, what does your comment contribute to the conversation?
Jim
Hi Jim,
Jesus the rejected Cornerstone was mentioned in the Blog; Specifically, who is the Messiah?
I clarified Who He Was, and IS, and Will be.
Now, as for those other sects of Christ that teach outside of the Bible but make sincere attempts to spread the Gospel of Jesus. I pull out the Bible and Address the Word, The Holy Spirit, and the Father as 1. Explain how blood was needed for atonement, how the Father expected perfection, and how the suffering servant – Jesus is the light that shines in a dark place was Murdered for exposing Human Nature.
As Joseph said, Through the Holy Spirit:
As for you, what you intended against me for evil, God intended for good, in order to accomplish a day like this— to preserve the lives of many people.
Praise Jesus the Savior of the World
Aaron,
You did not clarify anything: you merely reiterated your belief, a point about which no one expressed any confusion. Did you read the article or just the heading? Surely you do not think that R’ Blumenthal was asking for the Messiah’s name, not if you read the article. So I ask again, are you doing anything more than what the kids call trolling? What light do you think you brought to this conversation by stating your belief without substantiating it, especially when the truth of that belief (not yours in particular but Christian belief generally) is precisely what is being discussed?
Jim
Hi Jim,
I was merely responding to Yiddi – “godhead”
The Holy Spirit in relation to Man is very intriguing.
The Biblical definition of 1.
Calling God-King, only He receiving glory, and He the only Savior.
Then you mentioned a scenario, in which I gave you a base in which is the only Absolute.
And Yes, Joshua led Israel to the promised land. And once again, Joshua Will do it again.
Zechariah 3:8- Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
The word “Messiah” is not found in the O.T. as a proper name or as a technical term. It simply means “anointed” in the O.T. and in the N.T. There were many such persons in the O.T. and you could say that Yahshua (aka Jesus) may have been anointed (as a prophet with a mission). Beyond that, you could also use the statements of Yahshua from what is quoted by him having said in the synoptic Gospels as ” . . . . and he (Yahshua) said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is ‘God’ . . . . .” so Yahshua himself said he was not good enough to be “God.” Furthermore, for your information “Bible819” there are many sons and daughters of “God” in the Bible. One IS a brother and sister, and mother of Yahshua by doing the will of his Father, . . . . . ” Matt. 19: 17. So, if we who are doing the will of the Father are now a brother and sister or mother of Yahshua, then we must also have the same position as Yahshua’s (son relationship) by doing the will of the Father, (this is according to what the Messiah Yahshua (Jesus.) himself said in Matthew 12: 50. Simple.
John William
I have never seen this Jewish flag before on your web site.
You call it
“The Flag (Ensign) of True Israel”
Also
First you say
“The word “Messiah” is not found in the O.T. as a proper name or as a technical term. ”
then you say
“(this is according to what the Messiah Yahshua (Jesus.) himself said in Matthew 12: 50. Simple.”
What do you mean?
LarryB –
It is not a “Jewish” flag used – or rather adopted by the State called Israel. The symbol on the Jewish flag is an ancient symbol that has no ancient relationship with the ancient people of Israel or the King David. It is a symbol adopted by the current State called Israel, but the State is occupied by a people called Jews, so go figure that one. The flag or Ensign of “True Israel” is explained and defined on the site – AOYcascade.com. “True Israelites” are Covenant Keeping Israelites. The State called Israel is far from being “a Covenant Keeping” State. Some Karaite Jews may be the only exception as people behaving as True Biblical Israelites. As for the word messiah, it is not a proper name, but comes from an anointing action the person received. So to say THE Messiah, is
not proper, since many individuals throughout Biblical Israel have been anointed. As for the reference to Matt. 12: 50, – all that do the will of the Father are siblings of the Father YHWH, just like Yahshua (Jesus); since they are brothers, sisters, and mothers of Yahshua, as was stated by Yahshua. The prophet Yahshua was an “anointed” messenger with a message/mission – that the “Kingdom of Heaven was at hand” (Matt. 4:17). To find our understanding of that message/mission, go to the AOYcascade.com website and search for the document “Kingdom-of-yhwh.” Hope this helps a bit.
john william
i cannot find on your site where the symbol comes from.
Are your sure this is the true flag/ensign and what proof do you offer,
i do not recall any scripture calling for colors blue, red white with stars/.
Also this is what is causing my confusion about messiah.
1. (this is according to what the Messiah Yahshua (Jesus.) himself said in Matthew 12: 50. Simple.
2.So to say THE Messiah, is
not proper, since many individuals throughout Biblical Israel have been anointed.
First you call him messiah then say its not proper to do so.
John Williams
Here is another problem. On your site you say…
“The death of Yahshua on a Roman cross (stake) was not a sacrifice for anyone’s sin. Human sacrifice is forbidden by Yahweh. Yahweh does not permit an innocent man to die for the sins of another, but each will eventually be judged for their own actions whether they were good or bad.”
Yet there are any N.T. scripts that say Jesus did die for others sins. Here is just one:
1Peter 2:24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
LarryB
The True Israelite flag on our website originates from my ancestors, and dates from the late 1,300’s CE. They were Dutch Israelites, not Jewish. The flag information was passed on to me. As for the use of the word “Messiah,” I may have confused you. If you use the word messiah with the definite article “the” you make the word into a title or a name, which it is not. When you do not add a name to the word “Messiah” it remains indefinite, and refers to an unknown messiah, since there have been many “anointed’ (i.e Messiahs) throughout Bible history. When the word messiah is used with a name, like – “the Messiah Jesus” it refers to a specific messiah who’s name was Jesus.
Our website is not a “Christian” or a “Jewish” site. We are an Israelite (Yahwism) Biblical website and our fundamental beliefs are based upon the precepts found in Hebrew Bible, without the additions of man-made “traditions.” We counter many none Biblical Religious beliefs such as the so-called sacrifice for sin by the execution of Jesus, the trinity Doctrine, the pre-existing son Jesus, and much more. And, to counter both Jewish and Christian beliefs, – The Almighty Sovereign of the Hebrew Bible never required sacrifices of any kind to be able to forgive sins, or man-made religious traditions, Isa.1: 11-20, Jer. 7: 21-24.
John William
Are you the only one with this knowledge about the true flag? Only you
Have the true design and colors passed down from your family?
Also
“And, to counter both Jewish and Christian beliefs, – The Almighty Sovereign of the Hebrew Bible never required sacrifices of any kind to be able to forgive sins, or man-made religious traditions, Isa.1: 11-20, Jer. 7: 21-24.”
I asked about that already and you did not respond other than to give another quote about the same thing which simply contradicts the quote from the N.T. So I read you believe the N.T. is just replacement theology maybe that’s why you did this but why would you ever use any quotes from the N.T. or consider Jesus into the equation at all.
Also
You might want to correct the many links to gambling website on your site. Someone has corrupted your site.
@ A Yiddeshe Mama: I think the point with the Messianics pointing to those concepts is less about messianics saying that Jesus fits the rabbinic definition, model, and picture of Moshiach Ben Yosef, exactly, (why would he? that was an idea formulated by theological rivals of Christianity?) then it is them pointing out “These texts that we DO agree upon from Tanakh can be read in myriad ways, have been so, and there is even some degree of interplay and overlap present in how the two different traditions read certain texts even if the specifics are very different, and even in spite of a hostile relationship between both traditions.
Personally, I think Christianity makes trouble for itself when arguing against rabbinic Judaism out the gate when its adherents claim to use “just the word of God.’ Personally, I think either tradition doing that is silly, easy to disprove, and counterproductive. Both religions very clearly have preexisting traditions and assumptions about how to read the books.
When I am looking at any disputation I can find between Jews and Christians, I see the trend where Christians routinely rely heavily on oral traditions and trends of interpretation, from within Jewish tradition, but also from within their own Christian traditions, and then turning around and claiming “its ok for me, but not for thee,” when arguing with Judaism’s use of tradition. Its disingenuous of them at best, downright wrong at worst.
If I go by just what the books of the Christians themselves claim, J’s earliest followers would have been described as some Pharisee like, or Pharisee adjacent group, albeit wishy washy in some ways, but observant. As I like to say, “If Jesus had been born a Sadducee, the Christian religion simply would not exist.”
I have personally taken the Christian Bible apart Thomas Jefferson style, (stripped of its Narrative content) and just looked at the words of Jesus and his followers, including Paul of Tarsus, pertaining to how they taught Jews and Gentiles they interacted with to behave. IE the do and don’t of proper conduct according to them.
If I look at any Christian writing through that lens, the book is just essentially a gentile’s beginners guide to Jewish ethics, that lines up roughly with the expectations one would have of someone interested in, but not yet fully converted to Judaism. As a result, I don’t even see the value in arguing with them, lol because its an argument over a person (Jesus) who has been experienced by two groups of people (Jews and Christians) in diametrically opposed ways, but the behavior expected is similar on an ethical level.
There is no objective reason for anyone of Jewish heritage, or historical experience, to look at Jesus, and think, “Gee! This guy was awesome for our people.” No Jewish person slightly knowledgeable of their history with Christianity, being honest, would say this.
For the gentile world though (Europe and the Americas specifically) the Jesus movement had a profound impact on the culture, the history, and served as a reason for gentiles even taking scripture seriously at all, even though the history is blood soaked. As Muhammad’s personage did the same for the people of the Arabian peninsula.
To put it this way. If China had invented sliced bread 1st, or if they in fact did it better, even the best, it wouldn’t matter to the people living in a different location, half way around the world, in a different culture, because they would still love the guy who initially gave them the crappier version of sliced bread. That guy might get the credit, even if his version of sliced bread was generic, derivative, or bad.
As for J needing a cousin of Davidic lineage, while he doesn’t have that, the Christian Bible claims that John the Baptist who had priestly lineage, was his cousin, while Jesus allegedly was claimed to have had Davidic lineage. That’s not to say that its true, or that it is indeed something one could even verify, but it is interesting.
Other groups in the same period as J believed in both a Davidic and Priestly messianic figure, some texts even have only one messianic figure who seems to share characteristics and the mantle, both royal and priestly. That in and of itself is interesting because one figure that shares priestly and royal characteristics would not strictly be biblical at all, but the Hasmonean dynasty had both royal and priestly roles, (and all the controversy and scandal associated with that since its supposed to be a bicameral system.)
If I look at Jewish and Christian use of the books, there is a lot of overlap, and a penchant for biblical fan fiction in both.
The easiest way to put the screws to a Christian is just to read the book plainly the way a Sadducee or a Karaite might do it, because at least then you are just literally going by what little the book actually has to say on any of these matters. The second you bring one tradition’s view in, its decidedly more murky because there are so many ways to read, and even contradictory ways.
Recently there was a furore in my country over a locally produced brand of liquor. The brand name of this liquor is somewhat associated with the local Muslim community. Alchohol is forbidden to Muslims under the Islamic law. The fact that a product forbidden to Muslims being marketed with a name associated with the local Muslim community is a concern. It offends Muslim sensitivities and may mislead those in the community to consume that which is forbidden to them.
On the other hand, many outside and some within the Muslim community who see this furore as unecessary. A rational, pious Muslim is able to tell which is forbidden , in whatever packaging, shape and form. The company producing the said liquor is paying homage to the country’s rich history, hence the name and image on the packaging. The company concerned should not be penalized, or to rebrand its product because of the concerns by the Muslim community.
I brought up the above scenario as it seem to relate to Yiddishe Mama’s comment.I understand that Yiddishe Mama is pointing out that a rational,observant Jew is able to see through the smokescreens of the Messianics who are attempting to “brand” their beliefs as having some room in Judaism. However there are those in the community who may not be able to see as clearly. As someone who follow both Messianic and counter missionary content, I can say that Messianic content out there can be quite convincing. The presenters have a good grasp of Jewish tradition and are able to marry it with the New Testament. There is a possibility that a disconnected Jew too can fall for these arguments as well. That is why reaching out to disconnected Jews ,as well as the work of the counter missionary is crucial.
Responding to Concerned Reader’s point on the Jesus movement and its impact on the gentile world, and associating this movement to a crappier sliced bread- I do agree that Christianity has a profound impact in the Gentile world. However no one in his/her right mind will accept Christianity if this person come to know eventually that it is a “crappier sliced bread” and if there is a more authentic belief i.e sliced bread out there somewhere. The center of the Christian Bible, assuming if it is the New Testament (NT) alone, is Jesus .The ethical behaviours advocated therein is secondary and flow from the worship of this individual. There is a tendency to see the NT as an ethical guidebook or that Jesus a teacher among many. However the reader may not be able to appreciate the message of the NT in full.
There are many sources from within Judaism itself for the gentile to learn about Jewish ethics -which is based on Torah and flows out of the worship to the God of the Torah. There are resources and apps available at the touch of one’s fingertips – provided it is guided by an observant , Orthodox Jew. The New Testament is not one of them.
John Williams, I am going to be blunt, but I am not meaning to attack or offend you personally.
Get out of here with that Confederate flag gussied up with a cross BS. Failed flag for a failed movement, failed even according to the generals who fought for that movement. It has nothing to do with Judaism, Christianity, or any religion whatever.
I know the people who would associate this flag with the cross. Most wear hoods like frightened children so they can treat other human beings like trash. Its garbage, and I speak as a descendant of men who fought on both sides of the Civil War, as a guy raised around southern Baptists.
Which organization are you with? You talk about “Yahshua” as if that name was ever uttered by anyone ever before 1970. Jesus is literally just the Greek “Iesous” version of an Aramaic and Hebrew short form “Yeshua” basically just the name Josh.
Savior of the world according to y’all is “a dude named Josh.”
If you say “Karaites are the closest thing to biblical Israel” then why in God’s name do you preach things with no root whatever in the plain sense of the Hebrew Bible, but instead use extra biblical concepts from the intertestamental period and later that rely on mountains of oral tradition from both Christian and rabbinic notions?
You are talking about allying yourself with a guy who presented as a man from the 1st century who was allegedly God in a body, who was crucified by Romans and then resurrected from the dead, and worshiped by his students after alleged resurrection appearances.
Last time I read the Hebrew Bible, none of that garbage is in the plain meaning of the text, and nobody is under obligation to believe any of that garbage, which is why ANY Karaite would laugh you out of the room. You need verses?
Deuteronomy 4:15-19 NASB “So be very careful yourselves, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a carved image for yourselves in the form of any figure, a representation of male or female, a representation of any animal that is on the earth, a representation of any winged bird that flies in the sky, a representation of anything that crawls on the ground, or a representation of any fish that is in the water below the earth. And be careful not to raise your eyes to heaven and look at the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the heavenly host, and allow yourself to be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.
Isaiah 8:19 When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should a people not consult their God? Should they consult the dead in behalf of the living?
If you have a guy who at least appeared to die in front of you and rose three days later, it seems like Isaiah is telling you not to consult those who have died, even if by doing so, you believe you consult God!
If God were to have a son, or a discrete manifestation that he meant you to serve and pray to, these verses make it abundantly clear that an Israelite is forbidden both to make images of any physical form, or to worship any alleged members of an alleged divine entourage or host.
When you say Yahshua was god in some sort of body, don’t you think this would have been a clear verse in which to say “hey, this is my guy, here is what he looks like, here is his name, so you may serve him?”
You have to play interpretation with countless verses from countless books, like the text is a brain teaser puzzle.
Consider this. For every book in Torah that could imply that God had a body, or appeared, anyone could place any being they choose into that text, because at best there is ambiguity.
I bet that the worshipers of B’aal loved to use texts from scripture that could have insinuated that God could be physical, or that he had an emissary or partner, or that he had some anthropomorphic means of meeting humans directly, so they could say
“see! B’aal works for the lord, as his son, or servant, just as in these verses.”
B’aal was actually son of El in the Canaanite pantheon, and Asherah was El’s consort. El, is one of God’s names after all, right? El Shaddai?
So, slotting Jesus, or Yahshua, into those verses would accomplish and create the same problems for an Israelite, IE a clear contradiction with what is in Deuteronomy 4.
The fact that you would be saying what you are saying, about whom you are speaking, tells me you have not read one iota of what Karaites have historically said about Yeshua. Start with Eban Bohan “the touchstone.”
Then read the karaite polemic against traditional rabbinic Judaism.
Anyone who would try to associate Jesus with Karaites (other than Nehemiah Gordon who makes gobs of cash off of gullible messianics) has no knowledge of Karaite statements on this subject.
Concerned Reader,
Dear Concerned Reader, I am also going to be blunt. You may call yourself a reader, but your comprehension is lacking. In a previous statement (not addressed to you) we said that Karaite Jews were “behaving as True Biblical Israelites” IE, (they were attempting to keep the Covenant) unlike the Nation now called Israel. Do we believe their entire Doctrinal Statement? We have disagreements. As for the “transliterated name “Yahshua,” it is a very common Hebrew Bible name and the meaning is very clear, unlike the name “Jesus” which has no real meaning, except by Christian traditional association.
When using modern English, names can easily be transliterated to sound very close
to that of the original Language, so why not do it? Do we as believers in Biblical Israelism (aka post Moses Yahwism) support the belief in a trinity God? NO. Do we believe in a God-man (aka Jesus)? NO. Do we believe in using oral traditions to formulate our beliefs? NO.
Please be a bit more careful when you are reading, think a bit about it – is what you think you “thought” actually written. Failure to do so is exactly why errors in Biblical understanding, and responses to what people “thought” was written develop.
As for the “transliterated name “Yahshua,” it is a very common Hebrew Bible name and the meaning is very clear, unlike the name “Jesus”
Have you ever heard of the book the wisdom of Ben Sira? The wisdom of Joshua Ben Sira (and what is the Greek for the name Joshua in every source we have of that book?
Iesous.
Again, Jesus is just a short form for Joshua, IE Josh. A 1st year Greek student would know this.
You have to associate the name Jesus with something polytheistic and “corrupted” to try and discredit the Christian history, the mainline Christian doctrine, and you must therefore throw out Paul of Tarsus so that you can make the New Testament about 1 ethnicity. Its bullshit, and I am calling you out for it.
From someone who went to school to study this. If you throw out Paul of Tarsus, you literally throw out the earliest Christian written sources, older than even the synoptic gospels.
If your worldview has to reject critical biblical scholarship that everyone accepts to support a viewpoint, forgive me for calling BS on that.
I did visit your “site.” If you are not a White Supremacist, then why are you doing with the sources exactly what White Supremacist groups do with them?
If all the Jews are moved out of my neighborhood by Nazis, and I am just a “racial separatist” who supports separating the races, am I not an enabler too?
“we said that Karaite Jews were “behaving as True Biblical Israelites” IE, (they were attempting to keep the Covenant) unlike the Nation now called Israel. Do we believe their entire Doctrinal Statement?”
IE you support their methodology, and how they carry themselves. IE plain meaning without “man made tradition.”
If you teach doctrines that are not found in the plain sense without serious eisogetical massaging, like the Resurrection, you are commending Karaites for their lack of adherence to man made doctrine, but you are being selective, it shows inconsistency.
Karaites also accept converts and would not support a racial reading of the Torah.
To Concerned Reader,
Your comments indicate that you are completely ignorant of the information presented on our website(s). You might help educate yourself about that, if you would actually visit our website, and read our Statement of Belief, and/or some of the other documents presented on our sites that define out Biblical position and beliefs. If you did that, and then see something presented by us that you believe is not Biblical (using the Hebrew Bible) then please provide the text(s) and the Biblical location or citation(s) for your claim. We will review any contrary opinion (but we would be using the Greek or Hebrew language). Otherwise, your claims and ranting do not offer any value to us or anyone, since they are simply private opinions, mostly false, and do not have any Hebrew Bible support.
I did offer you biblical citations John, and explained why believing that God has a body and interacts with people in terms of being worshiped is unsound per scripture THAT INCLUDES A CREATED EMISSARY like Jesus per Deuteronomy 4.
per your own “who we are” document: “We are racialists simply because we happen to believe that Yahweh (our Almighty Sovereign Creator and Power) of the Hebrew Bible created all the various races. We do not believe that one race is superior to any other, but recognize that all are special, and created by Yahweh NOT to be equal.”
“Most of us are racially of Adamic Semitic/Caucasian descent commonly called the “white race” or the “Adamic race” although there are some “whites” that clearly are not Semitic people. We believe we are descendants of Adam and Eve, who were the first earthly parents of the white Adamic race.”
IE you believe in separate and unequal, but not superior. Nice verbal pretzel, nice potato PO-TA-Toe.
I give no shits that you claim not to be a supremacist organization when you have a co-opted flag, that any schmoe knows is the Confederate banner, that you have redefined, and yet still state in your statement of belief that you believe God created races to be unequal.
I would not say I was ranting at you, I just stated that you do not know what you are talking about. As I said, I wasn’t meaning to offend you.
You mentioned the Karaites, alongside your belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Karaites reject the resurrection doctrine, and that is something literally ANYONE should know about them and their notions before speaking.
I may be ignorant of your website, but your website is just a website, and I do not know who the sources you rely on are, or from whence they came.
I have a history degree and a comparative religion degree, so I promise, I am not speaking from ignorance.
John William The Hebrew nation is an “Am Segula” treasured by God for their obedience to the Torah’s edicts, not because of their biology, ethnicity, or birth. Ephraim and Manasseh’s mother was Egyptian. Those are “tribes” that are not “biologically pure” if there were such a thing.
Even “racial separation” indicated by scripture is only imposed “to the tenth generation of them that hate me.” IE you can be an Edomite, decide to keep the commandments, repent, and convert, becoming a member of the covenant nation.
Even Jesus’ ancestry, per the gospel accounts, has peoples of “ill repute” in it that were redeemed.
I also know you must reject Paul because he flatly refutes a racial reading of these books.
“First you call him messiah then say its not proper to do so.”
Larry, he cant use the texts in a consistent way. His movement is picking and choosing what pieces they believe are “word of God” vs “traditions of men.” His site throws out Paul (the earliest author among adherents of Jesus)
Lets not forget every single Christian writing started as Christian oral traditions about their teacher Jesus that were later written down in books. So, when someone who believes in Jesus says “I only accept the word of God” and then includes the NT books, they are being just a tad disingenuous. As I said to Yiddeshe Mama, Christians don’t like what they call “traditions of men,” even though they have to employ them to an insane degree.
CR
Thanks for being so blunt here. When I first went to his site something just didn’t smell right so I looked for links to who he associated with. I forget where it was but a link from his site to a associates site in one of the articles it mentioned that the truth about what they were talking about could never get out because the Jews own 80% of the media. At that point I wasn’t going to even talk with the guy so I do not have the link.
I will make an effort if necessary.
. Do we believe in using oral traditions to formulate our beliefs? NO.
Here is the thing John, you may not intend to be reliant on oral tradition, but actually you do rely on various oral traditions just by necessity of how it was you came to have the New Testament literature itself written in the 1st place.
If you make any reference to Jesus/Yeshua, by definition you invoke oral tradition, because that was the only means we had to learn anything about Jesus, or his movement. The books themselves say followers met in secret, were jailed, had to meet in family dwellings, etc. ergo, how did you get to the point that this information could be written and distributed?
People who believed in Jesus shared stories that they wrote down eventually, ie oral tradition.
His followers were largely illiterate Galilean fisherman, did they read and write in very good literary quality koine Greek that we now have epistles and gospels written in? No.
Who did know and write Greek? The Non Jewish followers of Paul of Tarsus’ early congregations in Asia minor, in Gaul, in Rome, that he poached from God fearers in the synagogues etc. (Paul being the earliest author of Christian literature according to the scholarly consensus, regardless of who you ask, or their ideological bent.)
Where do we get the earliest references about who was in charge of various congregations, or about Jesus’ own biological family members, their opinions, or about early Christian doctrinal disputes or fights between groups, or about who counts as leadership?
Again, that all comes from reading between the lines of Paul of Tarsus’ own writings to his congregants about various spats he was having with his fellow believers like James or Peter. Or, in the case of Acts, you are reading the work of Paul’s companions.
Think about this. Where do you get the idea that Paul was a false apostle from to begin with? Again, it comes partially from referencing Paul’s own letters wherein he talks about arguments he was having with “those reputed to be pillars who added nothing to me, etc.” IE Paul defends himself from accusation, in a heated way, and that’s how you or I even know there is an issue to begin with of an argument between Paul and believers in Jerusalem.
If we lacked Paul’s letters, or threw them out, you couldn’t make head nor tale of what was going on in Christianity in its formative years.
Jesus died in 33, and Paul is writing from 45-64. If you throw him out, you pretty much have no source material until about AD 70-100.
Concerned reader,
I just want to let you know, that I mostly agree with the points of your last article written and addressed to me. You should know however, that our entire site was designed to provide truth to the believing Christian who may have been indoctrinated his entire life through the opinions of the Pharisee Paul/Saul, because he claimed to have had a vision. Our website is not directed at correcting Jews or Jewish believers.
I know Christianity very well, having believed it in ignorance for 40 of my 77 years of life. I also know the many problems with it, some of which you have also noted. But, since our website is to get a “Bible believing Christian” to think about searching for truth, we have to be somewhat gentle in the process. I would say however, that if the entire NT disappeared tomorrow, and people were left only with the Hebrew Bible to develop a new religious replacement belief, it would be very simple for me if asked. I would just tell them to read Micah 6: 6-8, from the Hebrew Bible. What is stated there should be good enough, even for Jewish believers.
John William
So is this you
John (Yochannan) William. And your other site is trueisrael.tripod.com
Maintained by aoycascade.com
You are messianic Israelites. On that web site you ask is Jesus god,
“Is he or isn’t he? well…..Yes….but…first click on God to begin the complete story.”
Both your sites are corrupted with gambling links, the same ones, so it’s hard to get much information.
On aoycascade.com you call him a prophet. And I will bring it up again you say “the messiah” is not proper
but on your sister site you say “the life of Yahshua the Messiah of True Israel, shines brighter and brighter the more we understand it. There is no better subject to ponder, and we guarantee this one will make you think. So let’s begin.”
I ask again which is it? How can Jesus be got and not god at the same time
John Williams
Did you know that when I click on you name the links on your site end up with some pretty anti sematic and holocaust denier sites?
LarryB,
The main point to remember Larry, is that the word “God” is generic, it simple means Powerful (one). In other words, anyone with authority over you, can be a god. Or, anything you worship can be a god to you. In ancient Israel Gods where idols. So, unless you provide more information to define which god you are referring to, the word god means nothing to me. I often use it for folks like you to get into the word and learn. The Almighty Sovereign Creator of the Hebrew Scriptures has a name, it is YHWH (written in English letters).
for the meaning, go here: https://aoycascade.com/Documents/Yahweh-yhwh.pdf
Again, the word “Messiah” simply means anointed. There are many in the Bible that were messiahs. Furthermore, I have been on the internet for over 20 years, and have throughout that time updated many of the documents you may find floating around, see the new site(s) for the latest. I have no ability to control how others use my name or information, since it is all free in cyber space for all to use.
Yes, my baptized name is Yochannan-Willem
John Williams
I’m not referring to any god. It’s you who wrote on one site yes jesus is god and on another he isn’t. I bring it up because it’s confusing.
So even after 20 years you cannot dis-associate with those sites? Why would you link to them in the first place. I’ve been on the internet for over 30 years and understand how this works. I’ve built my own websites.
When I click on your name the web site, .aoyCascade.com.Comes up and your associate site “onlysavior.com”-is linked at the top of the page as an associate site.
Down at the bottom of the page on onlysavior web site it says
“This Site is Designed and Maintained by A.O.Y., Cascade”
Thats you.
On the onlysavior web site there towards the bottom of the page listed under
“Hebrew Study Documents”
there is a link
“Link to public Action, Inc. (excellent)” that must be a good site right?
that takes us to holocaust org
which is a holocaust denier / anti semite website.
And please stop with the I have no control BS, you have total control.
indoctrinated his entire life through the opinions of the Pharisee Paul/Saul, because he claimed to have had a vision.
Keep in mind John that this is an orthodox Jewish blog, so nobody here believes in Jesus as a messianic figure, but i used to be a believer in Jesus, and I think you may need to rethink Paul a bit. No offense.
How evil or false could Paul have actually been when he and his students preserved and transmitted everything he had at issue with those believers in Jerusalem, and what others took issue with regarding his opinions, down to you? I think you may be missing my point slightly.
In calling Saul of Tarsus a liar, you are at the selfsame time in contradictory fashion relying on the same written sources his own movement and students preserved, with the arguments they all had with one another kept intact for us all to read and interpret.
Would A good liar or deceiver lay all the cards out about what his issues were with his fellow Christians, and the issues they had with him?
The thing is, there are texts in the Tanakh independent of the Christians that state that God himself will cleanse the nations of their idols, or that they will throw them down of their own accord, or even that a remnant of gentiles after a war will repent, and God will give them pure speech to call upon his name with one accord together with Israel, and its not a given from the texts in Tanakh that the gentiles will join the Israelite Covenant beforehand as converts.
In Judaism these hypothetical non Jews are called Noachides, or also the ḤASIDEI UMMOT HA-OLAM Righteous of the nations.
There are examples in Tanakh of righteous gentiles like Naaman the Syrian, who despite not being Jewish, learned the value of obeying God.
IE the implication of various verses being that non Covenant keeping, non Israelite Pagan gentiles will one day throw away their idols in the same way that Abraham once did when he 1st listened to God and left Mesopotamia.
To Saul (Paul,) the death of Jesus on the cross, and his alleged resurrection, as Paul had interpreted it via his alleged Damascus road experience/vision, was the gateway through which the non Jews would come to knowledge of God without conversion to Judaism as a prerequisite requirement.
This was what some believers in Jerusalem “men from James” took issue with, particularly since it seems Paul may have let some Jews who followed him become lax in their Torah observance as a result of faith in Jesus.
That’s not a new occurrence in messianic movements throughout Jewish history. People get caught up in the hope for redemption, that they may become lax, or feel like fasting or certain practices are not essential, etc. Not a good thing, but not unheard of.
Paul said he became all things to all men, when with gentiles he behaved as a gentile, when with Jews, as a Jew.
That would understandably off course get him in some hot water from a strict Torah observant viewpoint.
Paul did however state that if you are called to follow Jesus as one born a Jew, you should remain one.
He held that the uncircumcised should so remain, and not take on Jewish covenant membership.
He also said that people of differing observance should bear with one another and their differences as brethren. IE in Romans he says to his gentile converts “do not boast against the natural branches.”
He Circumcised Timothy whose mother was a Jew, and whose father was a Greek (that’s a halachic practice.)
When pressed about whether he was teaching Jews to forsake the commands of Moses, he paid for and participated in a Nazarite vow to show Christians in Jerusalem that he was not against Moses or Torah Observance.
All of his non Jewish converts were taken from the “God Fearers,” an already existing movement within second temple Judaism of Gentiles who went to the Synagogue, kept some basic practices, (like the ones laid out in Acts 15 and the ones that form the basis of behavior Paul required of his congregations,) God fearers even sometimes acted as patrons to Synagogues, but these people had not been circumcised, and had not yet chosen to convert to Judaism.
Paul thought the coming of messiah would make a strict conversion to Judaism irrelevant, because he thought, the messianic age was at hand, being the period when all nations would worship together at the end of days after great calamity.
Also keep in mind that Paul lived in a generation where everyone among Jews (except the most hellenized of Jews) were Torah observant.
Even so, they still fought with one another, and argued sometimes violently over how different commandments were supposed to be observed.
The Parable of the good Samaritan illustrates that the meat of the law, not the outward appearance of piety is what matters. Though this is attributed as a saying of Jesus, it is also Pauline. Paul just expanded that message, and got in trouble for it.
The details of how a mitzvah is to be observed are what Paul called “works of the law.” The dead sea sectarians at Qumran in the document 4QMMT used the same phrase “M’aaseh Ha Torah” when talking about details about how they wanted priests in Jerusalem to perform commandments centered around the sacrifices.
Protestants misunderstand Paul’s statements vis “works of law” as meaning the observance of commandments in general would cease, so they get confused saying “Jesus and Paul ended the law.”
The actual argument that these men in antiquity were having centered around the question of “What is a gentile believer in Jesus expected to practice?” “Does he need to become Jewish 1st?” and on a deeper level “Is it even biblical to say that one is justified before God just because they have the outward marks of covenant membership?”
The important thing you should take note of John is that Paul was not the only one in antiquity asking these sorts of questions, and having these kinds of discussions.
Look up the author Paula Fredriksen. She has great books on Paul that I think you may get some better insight from.
Concerned Reader,
I really do not have all that much time, but I think I know about enough about Paul/Saul not to spend too much more on him. I do believe that he has done a great disservice to any non Israelite, by his phony theology. I think he simply wanted a piece of the religious action for the time. Everything he says is based upon his own opinions, very little supporting scripture, and when quoted, it is often false. Not enough room to carry the Bible scrolls around on his Mo-ped when traveling I guess.
A lot of what you have been saying reads a lot like the info. found in the book “Paul and Jesus” written by James D. Tabor. Are you familiar with his writings? Or, maybe you are familiar with “Jesus Interrupted” by Bart D. Ehrman. Also very similar information – good stuff.
I agree, you said, Paul was not the only one with his ideas, but his spiritualized Jesus became a ball picked up in the Third Century by Constantine Catholic Romanism, and presto – Christianity is born and with it a New Testament to replace the Old. . . . very sad.
@ LarryB Mr. William’s use of language is wishy-washy for a reason, and I don’t believe it’s by accident not for one second.
When he says to you that the term “God” is meaningless to him, and that “the true Eternal one has a name and it’s Yahweh” he’s playing semantics and word games, and in a way, despite saying he is hating Paul of Tarsus he’s acting just like Paul, becoming all things to all men to gain followers.
Except that for Mr William, there is a clear ideological end-game, that is about establishing his group’s racial belief.
His actions are only mysterious if you don’t frequent the certain disreputable sites to see what those types are up to. ; )
Here is the game he is at.
If Mr. William can reach a few followers from Christianity who happen to be white and traditional conservative christians who call Jesus God, as off course a traditional Christian Would call him, Mr. William can then slowly redefine the term “God” for these people to Simply mean “a person who is powerful,” in the way that an old-world polytheistic Gentile night use the term, or hell let’s throw it out there, the way Kim Jong-un is called God in North Korea, for political and ideological reasons.
It accomplishes a great deal for William because he can eat his cake and have it too.
Jesus can be both God and not God, depending on your point of view and how you use the term. Schrodinger’s God is it were.
He can say “oh you believe Jesus is God? So do I,” while also saying the term means nothing and only a fool would believe Jesus is God.
The words don’t intend to have original meanings to him, they are being used as tools.
Notice how he says he distrusts Paul, but he talks about “true Israel” and “an Adamic race,”
that just so happens to be white people? I for one did “Nazi” that coming!
He probably believes Orthodox Jews are not actually really Jews, but Pretenders or Khazars or something. Judging by the site that you say he linked about Jews controlling the media, I would say this is the old Slow boil anti-Semitism approach, again no offense Mr William.
It’s just the old school (forgive me Mr. William) white supremacist means of reading, using, and interpreting the Bible. Kind of why I called him on it when I saw his first comment with that flag, I could see what was going on.
For certain types, the Bible, and most media generally is used as a tool to Advance ideology, its not being interpreted for its original meaning or for good intention, whether we are talking the use of the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament.
It’s not dissimilar to how David Duke reads Scripture.
Now I could be wrong about Mr William, but I don’t think I am. Let me explain why.
He’s aware of the works of Dr James Tabor and of Dr Bart Ehrman, So he’s at least tangentially aware of what some biblical scholarship thinks the original intention of the authors of biblical books were, but he doesn’t seem to care very much.
Again, it’s because he already has a position.
His ” who we are” makes the position of his websites clear and plain.
CR
Your absolutely right about the game he is at and I love the Slow boil comment, that fits perfectly. It fits many of the links he offers up also. Another thing I do not understand, is why he tells us to read his site then denies writing it. He’s already admitted to OUR website. Maybe there are medical reasons though.
LarryB and Concerned Reader,
You should know by now, that “AOYcascade.com” and “OnySavior.com” are not Jewish websites. We are also not “Christian sites.” We are not racists, we are however Racialists, and are well aware that not all “YHWH’s created races were intended to be in anyway equal, or the same, because they obviously are not. That does not make one superior to the other, like Jews tend to believe, but that all were originally Created “good.” One of the
most racists of all groups (in my opinion) are Jews. Sorry to be blunt, but a thousand years of Judaism has proven (by the actions of Jews) that to be true. You may like to point to others, but as a people group, Jews are very racist, and dislike about any other race, even if they themselves are not a race, but are simply a religious group, believing in Judaism as their religion.
We are a “True-Israelite” site. In other words, we believe there is a significant religious Biblical difference between Judaism and “True-Biblical” Israelism. Like the site “Judaismresources.net” the information posted by us on out sites is available for anyone to read, and/or to comment. Not all, or maybe in your opinion(s), none of the information is to your liking on either of our current sites, but then, maybe it is not intended to be.
You are free however to read whatever is posted on of our sites. You are also free to disagree or accept it, or whatever you want to do with it. The same goes for me, or anyone else reading the documents or opinions on the “Judaismresources.net” site.
John Williams
Thanks for coming out of the closet. Everyone has different beliefs and those are usually shared using words. Can you define the word racialist for me, in as few of words as possible. Merriam Webster example:
Racialist: a person who believes that one race is superior to others
Sounds a lot like racist.
“True-Biblical” Israelism = A completely Bullshit made up term.
For an apparently proudly White European to call themselves a “true Israelite” and to still completely miss the irony that you as a European could only ever call yourself that because through Jesus and Paul of Tarsus all of classical native European culture, religion, and praxis from the old world ultimately fell to Christianity over time, is just, you will forgive me, rich as hell! lol
Even the “racialist” who wants to reconnect with his classical pre Christian European past has to comb through the words of monks, Church Fathers, and Christian polemics to try and recreate something.
I am 100% certain you have heard that from other groups of “racialists” you may know.
The only monks who actually kept some shit going were in Scandinavia with the Eddas, and in Ireland with their folk traditions, but even those have Christian marks on em, since the folk preserving it were well…… Christian monks.
Want to know how Viking’s buried their dead, and some authentic accounts? You have to read a Muslim Author, Ibn Fadlan.
Even the poor Persians who still maintained Zoroastrianism somehow got so much flack from the Christians that they had to write their own polemic against it.
Do you know the only locations on earth where a European doesn’t have to comb through mountains of Christian sources looking for crumbs to make some kind of meaning is at?
drum-rolll………..Asia and also THE INDUS RIVER VALLEY WHERE THERE LIVED A GROUP CALLED………….ARYANS!
(Its almost like Hitler and his merry band of evil retards had to go somewhere on purpose to try and make shit up, or co-opt even more culture. EVEN IN THOSE PLACES Christianity is still present.
IE White “racialists” try to have a movement look old, but really it is just a New Religious Movement that has to co opt and misuse other people’s books. Not unlike what Black Hebrew Israelite groups also have to do.
Mr. William, I do not mean to be unkind to you, truly I do not, I am just clearly making a point.
Since you mentioned reading Dr. Ehrman, you are at least partially aware that you are making shit up straight off the cuff, and for some reason you want us to call you the
“I cant believe its not butter” version of a racist, IE Racialist.
CR
That;s good, lol