1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

You have identified the source of the impossibility of any meeting of the minds between yourself and those that adhere to the Torah of HaShem: the two sides of the argument appeal to two different standards of evidence. Those that follow Torah, use it as their canon and guide, while you rely on a holy spirit as your canon and guide. These two differing evidentiary standards mean that you and we must always talk past one another.

Whenever you make use of the Torah, it is as a bludgeon. It is a weapon with which you hope to defeat your interlocutors. The Torah is not the source of your understanding; it is a tool that you use to support your “spirit-inspired” theology. Therefore, you do not object to the standard Christian practice of violating the text. Because meaning is something you put into the text, rather than derive from the text, the only violation of the text that you recognize is conflict with your own beliefs. The context of a passage is irrelevant to your reading of a verse, because you have imposed an entirely new context on the entirety of Tanach—it is all about Jesus. While no straight reading of Tanach could render such a verdict, a “spirit-inspired” reader feels perfectly justified in re-contextualizing the entirety of Torah in order to find Jesus in its pages—or, rather, force him into it.

And so, you can write that no evidence from Torah will ever move you. You rely upon a different source, altogether.

Those that love HaShem and His Torah cannot accept your standard of evidence, any more than you accept theirs. The Torah does not make the acceptance of a prophet, Messiah, or deity a matter of private interpretation. It does not tell people to consult with the holy spirit to establish the credentials of a man in any of these categories. No one who loves HaShem and His Torah can follow your holy spirit, then, because this is a standard of evidence foreign to him. He will know when Messiah comes when the role of the Messiah is fulfilled as clearly defined in Tanach, not by a list of misrepresented passages. He will know a prophet when a prophet produces observable evidence and by the consonance of his teaching with Torah. And he will know that God is not a triune entity, because Torah teaches that none are beside HaShem (Deut. 4:35). No spirit could convince him to violate the teachings of HaShem.

The spirit-filled person must certainly find it difficult to converse with one that loves Torah. The spirit-filled person arrogates to himself an authority not granted by the Torah. He claims to see what others cannot. Because he cannot demonstrate the truth of his claims from Torah, he can only assert that others are blind, while he sees. However, he has no means to demonstrate the truth of this assertion, so it never rises above mere claim. He unreasonably claims to he heard, while justifying why he need never listen to others.

He does not recognize the kindness extended by the Torah observant person, when the latter does not demand that the spirit-filled person substantiate his claims. It would be most reasonable for one who loves truth to demand of the spirit-filled person a sign or wonder in order to establish his special sight. But this would be to invite disaster upon the spirit-filled person. For, if he performed a sign or wonder, and then he preached a God unknown to the Jewish people, he would condemn himself. (See Deuteronomy 13.) Moreover, the most likely outcome is that the spirit-filled person would humiliate himself, being unable to present any evidence of his claims. It is most likely that no sign or wonder would be forthcoming.

Even by the standards of the Church, it is obvious that the “spirit-filled” are nothing of the sort. If ever tongues of fire appeared, they have long since disappeared. Perhaps at one time, followers of Jesus made the lame to walk and leap, but if so, they have long since lost the ability. The Book of Acts has Peter claiming that Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled in his time, but nothing is more apparent than that Joel’s prophecy has not yet been fulfilled—it certainly has not been fulfilled in the Church. Those signs that are to accompany those that believe in Jesus are nowhere seen. They are rumored to happen, but always far away. To ask the modern believer to produce evidence of his “spirit-inspired theology” is to embarrass him.

Because those that are devoted to Hashem and those that are devoted to Jesus rely upon two entirely different standards of evidence, it would be a kindness if the Church stopped appealing to Tanach to establish its theology. Moreover, it would serve the truth. It is the frequent claim of Christians that Tanach reveals Jesus to be Messiah and god. But, this is not his standard of evidence, and he should no longer pretend that it is. His canon is not the Torah. His appeal to Torah is a pretext, and when it is shown that he has misrepresented it, it becomes clear that his actual standard is a spirit. Let him say this from the beginning, then, and let him not appeal to a text for whom he has no respect. Let him no longer pretend that what he has pushed onto the text is something he has derived from the text.

When the Christian comes with his gospel, let him no longer bring his “proof texts.” Let him honestly admit that the source of his learning is not the Torah but a spirit that has granted him a new vision. The missionary ought to openly admit that the Torah teaches that God is one and alone, but he does not follow the Torah; he follows a spirit that says that God is three together. He ought to state outright that Jesus does not fulfill the definition of Messiah by Tanach, but that he has a different definition, not provided by Tanach but by a spirit. He should proudly proclaim that Torah teaches that HaShem made the Jewish people His witnesses, but that a spirit has made the Church its witnesses to a human being. He should honestly offer the two different paths of HaShem’s Torah or the Church’s holy spirit and not pretend that those two are one.

This honest approach will prevent the two groups from wasting time. In recognizing that the two are not appealing to the same sources, they can avoid talking past one another. In truth, they need not even talk to one another. The missionary, once he has admitted that he appeals to a non-Torah source has nothing to offer the Torah-minded person. He will have no evidence to offer, only the mere claim that he hears from a spirit. This spirit is of no evidentiary use to those that love HaShem. Once the missionary stops misusing the holy Torah of HaShem, then those devoted to that Torah will no longer need to defend it.

Jim

One of the most fascinating arguments that Christians raise regarding the proposed Messiahship of Jesus is that no living candidate can prove himself to be a descendant of David, because the family trees were burned with the Second Temple. This is supposed to leave Jesus as the only Messianic claimant whose genealogy can be verified. What fascinates is that the Christian argument relies on a principle of verification, a standard which Christianity by-and-large repudiates. In this article, I will demonstrate why this argument is empty.

In order to do so, I am going to take for granted certain elements of the Christian argument, which if they are not granted do not allow the argument to even be discussed. So, for the sake of argument, it will be granted that the genealogical records were kept in the temple and destroyed with it, though no evidence has been brought in substantiation of this. (The website to which you link quotes from a Christian Biblical encylopedia, which makes the claim that the records were kept in the temple and destroyed with it. The source in the encyclopedia is a non-source: “Babyl. Gemar. Gloss. fol. xiv, 2.” This is like giving a source as a commentary on the Bible, chapter 12, verse 3. Still, I will ignore this bad sourcing, and assume the truth of the claim, in order to examine the argument.) Similarly, I will ignore that the Christian scriptures give evidence that Jesus was not a son of David, being the son of God. Moreover, I will be examining certain prophecies that Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled. In order to allow the argument to progress, I will not discuss how the Church has misrepresented the prophets; I will treat the Christian reading as if it were legitimate, as if these were Messianic prophecies.

Part of what is so fascinating about this argument is the image it conjures regarding a possible future event. Imagine a future in which a king rules in Israel, a temple is rebuilt, the world is at peace, and non-Jews stream to Israel to learn about HaShem. This king claims to be a son of David, but Christians do not accept his lineage, asking: “If you wish to prove a Messianic pedigree now, who will be foolish enough to believe your great, great, great grandfather’s fond pretensions?” They protest outside his home, holding placards that read: “No genealogy- No monarchy!” This protest is based on what—that Jesus is the only possible Messianic candidate, because his is the only verified bloodline? Yet, this king has all the other qualities of the Messiah, all those that Jesus does not have. The greater evidence would seem to be with this king, and it would not be unreasonable to trust that he was a son of David under such circumstances.

What is more fascinating is that the Christian has introduced independent verification as a standard of evidence when many of the Christian claims about Jesus have no such substantiation themselves. So, Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah would be born of the virgin. Yet, no independent verification of the virgin proof has ever been produced. As many have noted before, Mary never submitted herself for examination during her pregnancy or at the moment of birth. As a sign attesting to Jesus as the Messiah, it fails, having effectively no witnesses. Perhaps the future Jewish King imagined above will be born of a virgin, and not only that, his mother will be verified to have been a virgin during the pregnancy. Then the world will have a real conundrum on its hands. Each of these two Messianic candidates will have fulfilled one of the Messianic prophecies in a verified way.

This is not the only prophecy Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled, of course, that has no verification. He fulfilled that great prophecy that the Messiah would come out of Egypt. Of course, Mary and Joseph fled secretly to Egypt, and no one seems to have known to where they had gone. No stamped passports were presented showing that they entered and left Egypt. Moreover, the Messianic prophecy that foretells that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem was not verifiably fulfilled by Jesus either. At the time of his adult ministry, people had no idea that he had been born in Bethlehem, according to John 7. If this possible future candidate is born in Bethlehem and has a birth certificate and a passport stamped, showing that he had been in Egypt, he will have gained quite an advantage over Jesus.

In fact, it is not just the prophecies of Tanach that Jesus fulfilled in secret, but his own most famous prophecy concerning himself. In Matthew 12, Jesus declares that his resurrection after three days would serve as a sign. But, if he rose from the dead, he did it in secret, never appearing to those to whom he promised the sign. It is an event with no independent verification. It is astounding how many markers of Jesus’ Messiahship are events that were never substantiated.

Even Jesus’ lineage remains unsubstantiated. Christians imply that Matthew and Luke verified Jesus genealogy in the temple before it was destroyed. However, this is not even asserted by either of them. Modern scholars believe that those two gospels, the only two with genealogies for Jesus, were written after the destruction of the temple. If one assumes, however, that this is not so, that those gospels predate the destruction of the Second Temple, the problem of verifying Jesus’ genealogy remains. In that case, shortly after the writing of those gospels, the only papers that could substantiate their genealogical claims were destroyed, making it impossible to compare them to the originals. It is as if the Christian god said to Matthew and Luke: “You believe in me, because you have seen my family tree; blessed are those that have not seen, but still believe.” The claim that Jesus’ genealogy has independent verification is baseless.

And the need for this baseless claim arises from the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the role of the Messiah. The Messiah is a promised king that will rule under the conditions briefly outlined in the third paragraph above. Jesus is not such a king, and, as such, is not the Messiah. However, the Church has asserted that Jesus is the Messiah, despite not fulfilling this promise. This claim demanded some evidence that would counter this obvious lack of fulfillment. One part of that was to say that the Jews (to whom this promise was made) did not understand the promise. Another was to introduce further qualifications to the Messiah that Jesus could be said to fulfill, qualifications that could not be tested. These qualifications would include the virgin birth and the resurrection and would have to be taken on faith. And yet, against reason, these are supposed to hold greater weight than observable evidence.

Because the unsubstantiated claims of Christianity are so weak, the missionary and apologist attempt to rule out all other possible candidates. He puts forth the notion that no other candidate could fulfill the prophecy, and in eliminating all other candidates, hopes to leave Jesus as the only possible candidate. It is as if the missionary has admitted: “Yes, Jesus’ claims do not rise above mere assertion, but he is the Messiah by default. No other candidates are possible.” In making this argument, however, he has adopted a standard contrary to that of his other claims, all of which must be accepted without evidence.

Yet, he can ask: “How can this prophecy ever be fulfilled?”

The answer is simple. Let it be granted that no one today knows who are the descendants of David. This will not hinder God from fulfilling his promise to David, because human ignorance is irrelevant to God. God knows what humanity does not. He knows who is and is not a son of David. And, He is faithful to fulfill His promises, so that, one can rely upon them—His word will come to pass.

Imagine that Jesus had never come, yet the temple was still destroyed and with it the records of the Davidic line. Imagine even that no one claimed to be a descendant of David. Under these conditions, shall we say that God cannot fulfill his promise? Not at all. Even after nearly 2,000 years since the destruction of the temple, one can rely upon the promises of God. He need have no doubt.

But a problem remains: How, then, shall one know that this king actually is a son of David? It is not hard to find a solution to this problem. Malachi writes of the coming of Elijah before the end, and it is in no way unfeasible that he will, through prophecy, verify that the Messiah is descended from David. Moreover, Joel prophecies about a time when prophecy will abound. The Church claimed to have fulfilled this prophecy 2,000 years ago, but such prophecy is not evident in the Church today, and nothing is more apparent that this time has not yet come. If the Church ever had a gift of prophecy, it has long ago dried up. 2,000 years of the light of Jesus has left not only the Church but the world in darkness. Nevertheless, a time will come when prophecy, true prophecy will abound, and when it does, surely it will not be impossible that the lineage of the Messiah will be revealed.

It is most fascinating that the Church teaches that one should accept Jesus without sufficient evidence, and then attempts to eliminate any other Messianic candidates on the ground that those candidates cannot produce sufficient evidence of their claims. It is precisely because Jesus did not fulfill the promise of the Messiah that secret signs are needed, which forces the Christian to adopt a double standard. But the argument fails to account for the possibility of some other candidate fulfilling the same prophecies as Jesus, only openly and with the verification that Christian claims lack. And it fails to note that a son of David could be verified through prophets, an oversight that arises out of the failures of Christian prophecy. No one whose trust is in God need suffer any consternation from the Christian argument; he may rely upon HaShem to fulfill His promises.

Jim