The Christian Claim for Recognition as Legal Heirs to the Legacy of Israel
Some Christians recognize the vital nature of the legacy of the Jewish nation. These people recognize that if there is no authenticity to the legacy of the Jewish nation, then scripture itself has no validity. These Christians do not submit to the legacy of our nation, instead they attempt to usurp the authority of our national inheritance. The argument that these people put forth posits that the early Jewish Christians are the true remnant of loyal Israel, and that Christendom is their legal heir. This doctrine sees the first Jewish Christians as the Jews who remained loyal to God, while the rest of the nation strayed from the true faith by rejecting Christianity.
This line of argumentation is untenable for four separate reasons. First and foremost, the mere fact that God allowed this Jewish Christian community to be eradicated (by the gentile Church – their supposed heirs), tells us that this was not the covenant community. God promised the Jewish people that the Sabbath will stand as an eternal sign for His covenant with the Jewish people (Exodus 31;16). From the time that the Jewish Christian community was destroyed by the Roman Bishops, this sign was not to be found in that community – for that community ceased to exist. The sign of the Sabbath was borne by those who rejected Christianity’s claims, and not by those who accepted them. Since this group disappeared as a recognizable Jewish entity, we can be confident that it was they who were cut off from the midst of their people and it wasn’t the Jewish people who were cut off from them.
A second reason why the Christian argument cannot be considered is because we have no way of knowing what it is the fist Jewish Christians believed. The only records that we possess, were preserved and edited by the very people who planted the seeds of their destruction. All of the original Aramaic and Hebrew documents are gone. Unless we trust the canon of the Gentile Church, there is no way we can know what the early Jewish Christians believed. For all we know, they would more readily identify with the Jewish position on the key theological issues rather than with the Christian position. (It is in place to note here, that many scholars recognize that a deep theological divide separated the early Jewish Christian community from the Gentile Christian community.)
Thirdly, we must consider the available evidence. The Samaritans, the Sadducees and the Pharisees all agreed on the issues which stand between Judaism and Christendom. All of these Second Temple communities recognized that the deification of a human is a violation of the Jewish perception of God. All of these communities acknowledged the efficacy of repentance for achieving God’s forgiveness, and they all agreed on the foundational role that observance of the Law plays in our nation’s relationship with God. These principles of our legacy were never open to question or dispute. If the early Jewish Christian community truly rejected these tenets of our legacy, we cannot assume that they were following a more accurate tradition than the vast majority of the nation. If their version of our legacy has any veracity to it, we would expect it to be reflected in the earlier records of our nation’s traditions. The fact that every record of our nation’s legacy unequivocally renounces the doctrines of Christianity does not allow us to consider this Christian argument.
Finally and most simply. The early Christians never put forth the claim that they were following a true tradition. They claimed to follow a new teaching which was unknown to them before they heard it from the founders of Christianity. There is simply no historical basis for the modern claim – generated by polemical pressure – that these doctrines were inherited from a previous generation of loyal Jews.
Another variation of Christian respect for the legacy of our nation has some modern day Jewish Christians following the precepts and practices of Rabbinical law in many areas of life. These people recognize that the legacy of the Jewish nation is the authority upon which scripture stands. They have also noticed that it was through Rabbinic Judaism that God preserved His covenant with His chosen people. These Christians have come to the unavoidable conclusion that Rabbinical Judaism is the only valid context from within which the Law of Moses can be observed. This Christian community discovered that Rabbinical Judaism allows for and even encourages disagreement and diversity within the proscribed boundaries of observance. These Christians propose to combine Christian theology with observance of the Law and expect this crossbreed to be tolerated as a valid opinion within the parameters of Rabbinical Judaism.
The error of this Christian community lies in the fact that they have never looked into the heart of Judaism and the Jew. All of Rabbinical Judaism’s observance of the Law is only an expression of her relationship with the God of Israel. Following the observances of Rabbinical Judaism in worship of an entity other than the One towards whom Rabbinical Judaism identifies as the God of Israel, is not only a misunderstanding of Judaism, it is the absolute antithesis of Judaism.
Furthermore, if there is one issue about which scripture is most explicitly clear in confirming the authority of our national legacy – it would be the issue of identifying God. Scripture records that it was God Himself who taught the nation this important lesson long before the first books of scripture were put into writing (Exodus 20:2,3,19,20). The Sinai revelation is spoken of by scripture as the defining teaching that gave the Jewish people to understand who it is they are to worship (Deuteronomy 4:15,35,39). To accept the definitions of our national legacy as they relate to the Rabbinical observance of Channuka, while rejecting the same legacy as it defines our relationship with God – is the height of absurdity.
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
At the foundation of Sinai was a Divine manifestation, not to the whole people, but to Moses. Who spoke to him, Who dwelt in the bush? Was it not the Angel of HaShem Who spoke this fearful words, I AM.
Charles. I have put 2 of your messages into my Enigma machine for a week now without any luck of figuring out what your point is. Clearly the Rabbi and CR have the new advanced model, I am saving up for one, they seem to know what your point is. Being an ex patriot Christian I am always curious to know what other Christian leaders say to make sure I am not missing something important. Reading both your comments to the Rabbi all I can come up with is So What? I apologize up front if you posted your questions because you don’t know as well.
Larry,
Let me share with you the results that I received from an AI Enigma machine in order to decipher Charles’ cryptic comments. (The cost per deciphering is 499.99 USD plus tax, but I felt that this was a mere pittance if it allowed us to better understand Charles’ comment.)
“I see that you would like an explanation of the following comment by charlessoper: ‘At the foundation of Sinai was a Divine manifestation, not to the whole people, but to Moses. Who spoke to him, Who dwelt in the bush? Was it not the Angel of HaShem Who spoke this fearful words, I AM.’ I see why you might suffer from a small case of confusion due to the terseness of the comment. What should be apparent to you is that charlessoper is a busy man and has not the time to craft a full argument. Thus he writes in what one might metaphorically call a ‘short hand.’ He hopes the reader will be able to discover the intention of his words without clear elucidation on his part. I am sorry that this is a challenge for you, Mr. [my last name omitted]. I will be happy to help.
“charlessoper is clearly a literate man, and as such, he readily employs literary conventions such as irony, just as he has done here. charlessoper wishes to juxtapose the weakness of the Christian attachment to a human being as God with the strength of the Jewish rejection of the same. Being a literate man, he can clearly see that in Deuteronomy 4, a chapter that appears in both the Christian and Jewish scriptures, Moses is delivering a lecture to the people of Israel, and he impresses upon them what they should take from the revelation at Sinai. He reminds them that they did not see any form (v. 12). And he goes on to tell them that they should not associate God, therefore, with any object in creation (vv. 15-19). This would rule out any worship of a human being as divine. charlessoper, in referring to an angel speaking on God’s behalf, wishes the reader to conclude that the Christian has no similar verse establishing the the worship of a human being. Even in the case of the angel mentioned in Exodus 3, no scripture can be found referring one to worship that angel. No corresponding verse has Moses impressing on the people that they should associate God with that angel in their understanding of God, which charlessoper intends the reader to recognize as the reason Christians do not produce one. If Moses did not tell the people to worship that angel as God, then certainly they are not to worship a human being either. This is evidence that charlessoper is a literate man.
“charlessoper wants the reader to understand the difference between God and Angel and infer further the difference between God and Man. This is why he writes that an angel said: “I am.” He means by this that the angel is clearly differentiated from God. An angel is a messenger, and the words it speaks, it does not speak in its own name. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to worship an angel for having given over the words of God.
“To illustrate this point, charlessoper might have relied upon the literary convention known as a parable as follows:
“A wealthy man from Dunmore once travelled to Saragosa on business. While there he met a woman with whom he fell in love. During the day, he would cultivate his business, but in the evenings he would dine with the woman and her family, cultivating a relationship with her and them.
“The man was called back home upon the death of his father and left Saragosa hurriedly. After his father’s funeral, he was unable to leave Dunmore as his responsibilities were now increased and he had to oversee the business more directly as well as tend to his mother and the rest of his family. But, he did not forget the woman of Saragosa.
“He sent a messenger to the woman with an offer of marriage. When the messenger found the woman, he spoke the man’s message. The woman was thrilled, for she too loved the man and had missed him in his absence. So, she arranged on that very day to marry the messenger.
“This parable uses irony in a way that charlessoper might have done, though he did not write it himself. It shows the absurdity of confusing a messenger for the one whose message he speaks. If the woman loved the man, she would not wish to marry the messenger, but she would travel to Dunmore to marry the man, himself. Similarly, the people of Israel would be foolish to worship an angel rather than worship God himself.
“I hope this answer satisfies you.”
___
So, I have allowed myself to write with my tongue a bit in my cheek. But I figure an A.I. could not employ imagination in the same way that Charles and every Christian does. Charles will tell you that he believes in sola scripture, but he contradicts the Torah frequently. The Torah says that God is One and alone; Charles says that God is three. The Torah says that one should not associate God with anything in creation; Charles says that a particular man is to be associated with God. The Torah says that the Torah is a Tree of Life; Charles, following Paul, says the Torah brings death and refers others to another tree.
The irony was not where the imagined A.I. enigma machine found it. Rather it is in the fact that Charles outright contradicts the Torah but will have the temerity to say that the Jews are obstinate and, again echoing Paul, that they have a veil over their hearts.
Ovadiah (Jim)
Jim
Thank You, As usual you make what seems complicated easy enough for a child to understand.
Reading your explanation at first, my first thought was, that’s down right deceitful on his part, then I remembered being on his website and over all his intentions seem to be good on many different subjects. So that cannot be true. The fascination/need, Christian’s have with god being more like them/man, than them being more like god/ his teachings, truly puzzles me. I’m sure if they would go to a Rabbi to learn the Torah/Judaism instead of going to a Christian minister or priest this would easily be cleared up. I know for a fact they would never tell a Jewish person when evangelizing them for conversion to Christianity, quick, come to a synagogue and learn about Jesus.
p.s. it’s great to hear from you again.
Thanks, Larry!
Larry,
I have been thinking a lot about your consideration of whether or not Charles is being deceitful, particularly because my daughters criticized the tone of what I wrote above, believing it to be too harsh. I would like to say that it is quite probable that Charles has good intentions, but that does not mean that what he writes is not deceptive. And, in some ways, it does not much matter whether or not he intends a deception or not. I will attempt to illustrate this by comparing two men at different levels of a multilevel marketing business.
The first of these men, Dean, is a founder of an MLM called Widget World, their product nominally being widgets. Dean knows that his actual product is not widgets. It does not matter to him whether or not he sells diet supplements, hats, make up, or kitchenware. Whatever product he seems to offer is only a facade for a pyramid scheme. What Dean really offers is a dream of financial independence; his widgets are incidental. In the MLM “business model,” a few people at the top will recruit others who will pay to join the business and will recruite others to do the same. All the money from the recruits will flow upward to the top, to Dean. Dean’s goal is not to sell as many widgets as possible to grow the business. Rather it is to inspire enough people to pay to join the business. To this end, he holds inspirational seminars, promising to people that with hard work, dedication, and faith, they can all become as wealthy as Dean has become through Widget World. But they can’t. Once one is a few layers down in the pyramid, it is pretty well impossible to make any money. And, indeed, the money Dean makes comes through charging people for his seminars—he makes them believe that this is a business investement, an investment in themselves—and various kits, add-ons, and the like to improve their businesses.
It is common for people to become discouraged as a part of Widget World. Their initial investment into the business is hundred, possibly thousands of dollars, money many people cannot afford to lose. They do it, however, because they believe that they will make that money back and much more besides. And, they will no longer have to work at the jobs that they hate so much for the bosses who demand too much of them. They will be their own bosses, setting their own hours. But they do not get that money back. They do not make a living let alone get wealthy. And so, people frequently leave the business after a year or two, no wealthier but more disillusioned than ever.
Dean tries to keep people in as long as he can. When someone expresses how hard it is for them, he attempts to inspire. When he is “on his game” he is able to talk them into investing more. He does this by telling them that they must not give up on themselves or God, that they must show their faith by doubling down. They must invest in themselves—of course, all this money really goes to him. He uses his success as proof that Widget World works; it makes wealthy people of those who stick with it. But, Dean knows that they are not going to become wealthy at Widget World. He is just trying to get from them what more he can.
We can contrast him to Todd who joins the business later several layers down the pyramid. Todd is a firm believer that Widget World offers him a path to financial freedom—him and anyone else who wants it. He has not done the math that would show him that it is not feasible that he should become wealthy in an MLM as far down the line as he is. He does not realize how difficult it will be to recruit enough dedicated people under him to make things work. And so, he enthusiastically works to recruit his friends, promising that they can all experience financial freedom together. And, when one of his recruits has doubts and thinks about leaving Widget World, Todd does all that he can to dissuade them. He encourages them to have faith and, like Dean, to invest even more in their future. He means well. He does believe they can succeed, but he is wrong.
The difference between Dean and Todd in motivation is apparent. Dean exploits those who join his business. Todd is an innocent. Nevertheless, he performs the same kinds of harm that Dean does. However much it is done unintentionally, Todd is complicit in Dean’s endeavors to take advantage of the naivete of his recruits.
Let us note, also, that Todd’s innocence varies with the amount of information he has. If he has been confronted with data that shows how exploitative an MLM is and he ignores it, because he does not want to give up the fantasy that he can himself become rich, he is not as innocent as he would have been otherwise.
Is Charles well-meaning? Probably. But, from the perspective of those he seeks to recruit to Christianity, it is irrelevant. He still spreads deception, attempting to lead people to the idolatrous worship of a man—a dead man at that. Where he is successful, he causes people great harm.
Let me add this: I do not believe Charles argues in good faith. Not only does he frequently impose upon scripture his own meaning—a crime of incredible brazenness—he does not honestly engage his critics here. He drops a note and then refuses to elucidate his point or answer challenges. I can understand, of course, that he may be busy, and it is difficult to answer many challenges. But, if he sincerely wishes to save us from the fires of Hell, he has a responsibility to answer those questions. I am left with the impression that his only real interest is to drop a bit of apologia on us, to show to himself that he is right and we are wrong. If I am wrong, I apologize, but his endeavors do not speak to serious concern for others.
I propose that he take up the following questions to show us his seriousness of purpose. I don’t expect that he will be able to give all his responses in one long block. It may take some time to get to these, but I will gladly be patient:
I encourage Charles to take up these questions in whatever order pleases him at whatever time is convenient to him. But let him take up the argument honestly and completely, not relying on shorthand and ending all conversation.
Ovadiah
(Jim)
Here you go again arguing with Scripture – Scripture tells us what was the foundation of the Sinai event – Deuteronomy 4
Could Deuteronomy 4 have happened without Exodus 3 first?
Could Deuteronomy 4 have happened without Exodus 3 first?
It’s obvious BTW John, at least, intended to write for Greek readers, presumably Greek speaking Jews of the Diaspora and Gentiles. There’s a running translation & explanation of Hebrew terms through the narrative.
test
wow, I guess I have been blocked? I have written several response posts as (concerned reader) which do not post under my old username or Email combo?
C Soper did you notice that in Exodus 3 the sign that God says proves that inded God is the one who sent Moses to the Israelite’s is that Moses brings them to worship him on THAT mountain?
Moses sees a Bush burn but is not consumed. HE GOES TO SEE THAT SPECTACLE He HEARS a voice coming from within the bush, and it even says when MOSES knows its God speaking to him, that HE LOOKS AWAY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT TO LOOK.
The sign that Moses is the true prophet in exodus 3 is the very event that Moses is recounting in Deuteronomy 4 AND MOSES SAYS IN DEUTERONOMY 4 ISRAEL WERE ALL WITNESSES AND DEUTERONOMY 4 is MOSES” recounting of what Israel should take away from that encounter.
so, there is no contradiction fundamentally between Moses’ experience in Exodus 3 where he hears the voice and doesn’t look vs MOSES’ own recounting of the Sinai event THAT EXODUS 3 SAYS IS THE SIGN HE IS A PROPHET.
CSoper Moses in Exodus 3 hears a voice, and looks away (sees no form.) In Deuteronomy 4 Israel hears the sounds of words and sees no form of any kind. The Malach hashem as Captain of the lord’s host (Joshua 5) would count as “all the host of heaven” from the standpoint of Deuteronomy 4. IE Hashem’s entourage. Israel and Moses worship the father.
If you are Adamant that the Memra/Logos?Active Intellect/Wisdom?Angel of the Lord is a divine manifestation of God, Israel would not worship the logos made manifest as a Bush anymore than they would as a pillar of cloud, or as a man.
Exodus 3 and Deuteronomy 4 teach the same thing.
Pingback: Face to Face- Dr. Brown Responds to Rabbi Blumenthal | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Jim
I was hoping Sir Charles would jump in here before telling you to thank your daughters for inspiring you to expand your thoughts and asking such great questions. Number 5. had me laughing so hard
“the Testament of the Father, the Testament of the Son, and the Testament of the Holy Spirit”. Like “The Never Ending Story”,
The kingdom needs the help of a human child to survive.
Larry,
You are very funny.
I did not mean for question 5, however, to be humorous. I intended no sarcasm or mockery in the question, although I see how it might inspire a bit of mirth in the reader. I think the question is an important one.
If the Christian wants us to accept the Christian scriptures, he must leave himself open to the possibility that other scriptures are yet to be revealed. And, indeed, I think it is quite reasonable to believe that a third set must be revealed corresponding to the third member of the Trinity. What assurance can the Christian offer that another testament is not waiting to be revealed, seeming to contradict Christian scriptures? How does he know that the meaning he now attaches to taking communion will not be superceded by a greater meaning in this third testament, and how can he assure the prospective believer of this? Furthermore, if the Christian says that salvation cannot come through adherence to the law, because no human being can fully keep the law, is it not possible that he will learn the same thing about faith in the Testament of the Holy Spirit, i.e. no one can achieve perfect faith? Thus we read in the Christian Scriptures: “…help my unbelief.” We see Peter’s faith falter at the time when he walked on the water with Jesus and later at the crucifixion. And we see that Thomas did not accept the testimony of the disciples that Jesus resurrected. Yet, Peter and Thomas are believed to have received salvation. One could argue, therefore, that faith cannot produce salvation, but salvation comes through some third way associated with the Holy Spirit.
Of course what I have written here has not occurred to most Christians and will strike them as bizarre. Nevertheless, these questions are the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine, and I think they should be taken seriously. I think it is imperative that Charles, if he wants us to seriously consider adopting the Christian faith, should answer these questions as honestly, completely, and in as most straightforward method as he can.
Ovadiah (Jim)