Genesis 3:15

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Genesis 3:15

The Christian sees deep significance in the words: “her seed” referring to Eve. The argument of the missionary is that since we only have reference to the “seed of the woman” and no mention is made of the seed of a man so we have a prophetic announcement of a “virgin birth”.

This argument fails for several reasons. According to this line of reasoning; every time that the Scriptures address an individual concerning their progeny using the term: “your seed” we ought to conclude that we are talking of a virgin birth (in those situations where a female is being addressed such as Genesis 16:10) or of a birth that is achieved through a male without a female (where a male is being addressed such as in Genesis 3:15 – the serpent). If this were true then we would have many virgin births announced in the Bible.

Furthermore…

View original post 214 more words

Posted in General | 9 Comments

Not to Bow

Not to Bow

 

“And all the servants of the King that were in the gate of the King kneeled and bowed to Haman but Mordechai would not kneel nor would he bow” (Esther 3:2)

Mordechai’s refusal to bow infuriated Haman. It infuriated him to the degree that he was moved to destroy all of Mordechai’s people.

It seems that the Jewish refusal to bow does not sit well with God’s enemies. These people see the Jewish refusal to bow as legalistic, arrogant, and self-centered. Why can’t you be like everyone else? Everyone else is inspired by the wealth of Haman, by the power of Caesar or by the mystery of Jesus. Why does the Jew have to stand apart?

This is the question that fueled the fires of hate for generations. This question was in the mind of the Crusaders, the Inquisitors and the propagandists who inspired their crimes. They see the Jewish refusal to bend to the allures of finite existence as a smug disdain for the rest of humanity. Everyone else sees the reason that we need to bend and kneel to Jesus, why can’t the Jew just join us?

But nothing could be further from the truth. The Jews refusal to bend is not rooted in a disdain for humanity, it is rooted in a deep belief in humanity. You see the Jew believes that no human should bend to the beauty, the wealth, the mystery, the righteousness or the power that is contained in finite existence. The Jew believes that humans have a greater calling than submitting themselves to servants. The Jew looks forward to the day when all of mankind will bend to the One Creator of all (Isaiah 2:17).

While God’s absolute sovereignty is hidden from the hearts of men the Jew is called to be God’s witness (Isaiah 43:10). It is our duty toward God and man not to kneel and not to bow. It is our duty to testify that every last man woman and child can approach the Father without the services of another subject of God. Our testimony is that the happiness of man will be found when we recognize that we are all recipients of God’s love and that our deepest joy is to acknowledge this simple truth with every breath of life.

The Jew’s refusal to bow is not a reflection of arrogance or disdain; it is a reflection of love and reverence. It is an invitation to see every facet of finite existence as a recipient of God’s love. And it is a declaration of God’s absolute mastery over all.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in Holidays | 38 Comments

Idolatry – by Concerned Reader

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

I often find that well meaning Christians, and well meaning Jews talk past and over each other on the question of idolatry, its proper definition, and whether or not a given person is engaged in the service of idols in their tradition or not.

From the perspective of Judaism Deuteronomy 4 and Deuteronomy 13 clearly emphasize that G-d is not to be likened to or worshipped in any form, nor is the “whole host of heaven” to be worshipped ie G-d’s entourage is not to be served, (even though they work for him) and G-d is to be known to Israel as he revealed himself at Sinai.
In this post, I would like to tackle this whole discussion from another, (and I believe very neglected) angle. Where does the NT and the Christian tradition itself stand (in terms of its own teachings and definitions) concerning these important messages of Duteronomy…

View original post 1,873 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Incarnation and Definition of Marriage

Incarnation and Definition of Marriage

Reverend Smith’s gaze shifted from Mary to Jane and back to Mary again. The Pastor broke the long silence: “What! You want to get married in MY church?! Don’t you know where I stand on the issue of same-sex marriage?”

Mary looked the Pastor in the eye: “This is not a “same sex marriage” – don’t you know that Jane is an incarnation of a man. She is one hundred percent man and one hundred percent woman. I fully expect you to sanction our marriage.”

Reverend Smith looked at Mary. It was Mary who broke the silence this time: “What’s the matter? You don’t believe in the incarnation?”

“I have four problems with your incarnation claim” said the Pastor. “Number one; there is no such thing as an incarnation. The Bible speaks of male and female as if it is self-understood that these are two separate entities. The usage of the language in the Bible doesn’t allow us to assume that these two terms (male, female) are interchangeable in any way.

Number two; even if I were to grant that such a thing was possible, how would you, Mary, know that this is true about Jane?”

At this point Mary interrupted the Pastor’s little lecture: “What do you mean: “how do I know”? – I have many proofs that Jane is the incarnation of a man. You didn’t even listen to me and you are already discrediting my theory.”

Reverend Smith continued: “Mary, your comment brings me to my third point. You didn’t SEE Jane as an incarnation of a man, it is something you believe you have proof for. Let me ask you this: What came first? Was it your devotion to Jane or was it your theory? Did you first begin a relationship with Jane and the come up with your theory? Or was it the other way round – that you first “discovered” that Jane was an incarnation of a man and only then did you enter into a relationship with her?”

It was Mary’s turn to remain silent.

The Reverend continued: “My fourth problem with your theory is that even if Jane was, in some mysterious way, an incarnation of a man, but presently all you see is a woman. Your relationship with her is still a relationship between two women. I can never condone, let alone bless, such a relationship as a marriage.”

Some Facts:

The One TO whom all worship is due and the ones FROM whom worship is due are distinct and separate throughout the Bible. At no point in the Scriptures is there any indication that these two are interchangeable.

The disciples of Jesus never SAW that Jesus was an incarnation of the Divine – it was a theory they “discovered”.

The followers of Jesus only came up with this theory AFTER they were already fully devoted to him.

After everything is said and done, the Jesus that the Christian reads about in the Christian Scriptures has all of the characteristics of a created being. When a relationship is formed with the character described in the book, no matter what theory is appended to the character, the relationship remains a relationship between two created beings.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in The Ultimate Truth | 391 Comments

Deadly Parable – excerpt from Supplement

Then Brown goes on to one of the most staggering arguments in this five volume series (and there are no shortage of these): “Or consider this parable of Jesus, one that proved to be incredibly prophetic just forty years after his death and resurrection:

 

“Listen to another parable: there was a landowner who planted a vineyard, he put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent more servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all , he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son’ he said.

 

But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir, Come, let’s kill him and take away the inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

 

Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?

 

“He will bring those wretches to an evil end” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at the harvest time.”

 

Jesus said to them, “have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

 

Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces but he on whom it falls will be crushed.” (Matt. 21:33-44)

 

Do you understand his words? 

 

This is a teaching of Jesus that Brown is proudly holding up as an example of Jesus’ amazing ethical and spiritual insight with no parallel in the rabbinic writings.

 

Indeed. You will not find a parallel to this in any of the rabbinic writings, and for good reason. This evil parable of Jesus is a blood-soaked stain on the history of Christianity.

 

What is the point of the parable? And how does Brown see its fulfillment forty years after Jesus’ death?

 

The owner of the vineyard is God, while the tenants are the Jewish people. The son of the landowner is Jesus and the murder of the son is the crucifixion of Jesus. In the parable, Jesus tells us the motives behind the murder of the son of the landowner: “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir, Come, let’s kill him and take away the inheritance”. In other words, they identified landowner’s son as the landowner’s son, and they killed him because they wanted his inheritance. To transpose this onto the events surrounding the crucifixion, Jesus is saying that the Jews who killed him knew that he was who claimed to be, and killed him because they somehow thought that by killing him they would take that which belongs to him. Jesus is not done. He tells us that the guilt of the tenants belongs to all of them and the whole lot of them will be punished by having the vineyard taken from them. In the real world, he puts the guilt of the crucifixion upon all the Jews and tells them that the kingdom of God will be taken from them and given to others. Brown sees a fulfillment to this pronouncement in the destruction of the Second Temple and in the rise of the Church.

 

Words fail to convey the evil that is inherent to this parable.

 

How many Jews were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus? – perhaps a handful. Why did they want to kill him? According to the very same Christian Scriptures we have two answers to this question; either because they considered Jesus to be a blasphemer (Matthew 26:65), or because they were frightened of the Roman reaction to his claims (John 11:50). The accusation that is implicit in Jesus’ parable, namely that the Jews KNEW that he was who he claimed to be and killed him anyway – has no basis in reality. The idea that they killed him because they wanted something that belonged to him is ridiculous to begin with. What did he have that they thought they could take? The idea that all the Jewish people are guilty for the crimes of a few, is also immoral and unethical. Yet on the basis of this teaching, Christian Europe decided that all the Jews are guilty of deicide – having committed the sin, with full knowledge of the severity of the act.

 

This lead to teachings of hate and dehumanization that have their roots on this evil parable, but continued to flourish in what Brown sees as an “incredibly prophetic” fulfillment of Jesus’ words. As the Church spread, so did its Jew-hatred deepen – persecution, of every sort, incitement to murder, murder, Crusades, Inquisition and holocaust – all have their roots in this evil parable. And this is what Brown holds up as something we should be impressed with?

 

Just look at the hypocrisy – which is really too small a word to describe two millennia of crime. It was a few Jews who killed Jesus who never believed for a second that he was the son of God. Brown is satisfied with the judgment that all Jews should now lose the kingdom of God. So who inherited that kingdom? Who are the good tenants that Brown is happy to see tending the vineyard as an expression of justice served? The Church! The Church who killed and tortured millions of people who are explicitly identified by Scripture as God’s firstborn son (Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:8). If the killing of one son requires that you lose the kingdom, what does the killing of several million do for you? But for Brown, justice is served. The Jews lost it, and the Church got it – and Brown sees this as an “incredibly prophetic” fulfillment!?

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

 

Posted in General | 445 Comments

In Search of Victimhood

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

In Search of Victimhood

 

 

The tendency of man is to focus on that which is most obvious. The loudest, most colorful, most attractive and most forceful draws our attention and skews our perspective of reality. Our enthrallment with the obvious blinds our eyes to the still silent voice of truth.

This human tendency favors the present over the past and future. Instead of looking at the arena of human activity as an intricate chain of cause and effect we pass judgment by what our eyes see here and now.

The Jewish people carry a legacy that teaches them not to be swayed by color, noise, flash and smoke. After all, we serve a God that cannot be seen. The Eternal Jew sees the activities of men as a saga which stretches from the past into the future, with the present simply being one link in the chain.

Christianity…

View original post 476 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Supplement to Responding to an Atheist

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Supplement to Responding to an Atheist (and to a Christian)

The following question was posed in the context of my article “Responding to an Atheist”. This question articulates something that weighs deeply on the hearts of many Christians. The Jewish testimony that lifts God above all of nature seems to push God far away. The Christian philosophy which has God humble Himself and participate in the experience of His creations makes God so much more accessible and loving.

Here then is the question: “…what is wrong with the Christian belief that God might humble Himself and be known as part of creation, even though He still deserves our worship… and even more so because of such a gift?”

Annelise puts the question in context: “I understand that there’s no way within Judaism of testing that someone/something that seems like part of nature actually is an incarnation of God and deserves…

View original post 963 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Foundational Claims – excerpt from Supplement

In order to establish the logical principles that God exists and that He is in control of nature, God turned over the world (with the miracles of the exodus and Sinai). He did this in front of an entire nation. He left no room for questions. Yet missionaries would have us believe in the paradoxical teaching that attributes divinity to a human being on the basis of the garbled report of people who were devoted followers of this human being!?

Just for the record let us contrast the foundational events of Judaism against the foundational events of Christianity.

Every religious belief system (including atheism) must by definition present a teaching on that which is not visible in the physical world. Judaism teaches that there is one God, Christianity teaches that belief in Jesus provides forgiveness for sin, and atheism teaches that there is no God. None of these teachings could be verified through a physical science experiment.

In order to maintain a minimal sense of credibility, any given religious belief system must explain how it is that it received this knowledge from the realm of the invisible.

Judaism is the only religious belief system that comes with the claim that the foundational elements of knowledge came from the realm of the invisible directly to an entire nation. God Himself spoke to Israel and showed them that He is the only God (Exodus 20:1, Deuteronomy 4:35). God Himself allowed the nation to listen in as He spoke to Moses, affirming Moses’ position as God’s prophet (Exodus 19:9). These two articles of information (God’s reality, and the truth of Moses’ prophecy) are the foundations of Judaism, and these were given to the nation directly from God. In stark contrast, the foundational concepts of Christianity were allegedly revealed to individuals (Jesus, and Paul) who passed on what they claimed to have seen and learned. Judaism stands on the testimony of a nation, Christianity (like Islam) stands on the word of individuals.

We could classify miracles into two categories, there are “Wall Street Journal” miracles, and there are “tabloid” miracles. A faith-healing or even a resurrection, are not events that impact the world at large. A respectable newspaper will not put a faith-healing as a headline article because it has no broad ramifications. On the other hand, if the entire army of China were to drown in the sea, the event would make headlines in every respectable media outlet.

The foundational miracles of Judaism impacted the physical lives of nations in a concrete way. The Egyptian army, the world power of the time, was drowned in the Red Sea. A large nation (Israel) was set free from slavery, while another large nation (Egypt) suffered terrible losses. The Nile turned into blood for seven days, the country of Egypt was covered with darkness for three days – events that are visible for miles around and to countless people. In contrast, the alleged miracles of Jesus touched the lives of individuals. Not any individuals, but only those who already had put their faith in him (Mark 6:5). The alleged resurrection was only witnessed by people who already believed in him.

The miracles of Judaism were preserved by the physical descendants of those whose lives were impacted by these foundational miracles. In sharp contrast, there is no family that lives today that claims to descend from those who were healed by Jesus.

In short, the miracles of Judaism are credible from every angle. Christendom acknowledges that God went to these lengths to establish the credibility of the principles of Judaism. And again, the principles of Judaism are logical and straightforward. Yet Christendom expects people to believe that the same God will condemn everyone to hell for not believing the paradoxical teachings of the trinity and the incarnation on the basis of a few “tabloid” miracles?!

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in Basic | 88 Comments

It’s a Midrash! – by Jim

It’s a Midrash!

Because Jesus did not perform the function of the Messiah, the authors of the New Testament had difficulty demonstrating in what way Jesus could be the Messiah. They could not quote Messianic passages—at least not much—because the reader would realize that Jesus had not met the definition of the Messiah. Therefore, the authors of the NT would need to invent new functions of the Messiah, quoting and misquoting passages irrelevant to the definition of the Messiah in order to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled numerous prophecies. A strong proof against Jesus having fulfilled any prophecies is derived from the abuses of scripture in the NT; if Jesus had fulfilled any actual prophecies, the authors of the NT would not have to invent them from whole cloth. Many have objected to the abuse of the Hebrew Scriptures, Tanach, on the basis that one must not misrepresent the words of God through decontextualization and mistranslation. But the Church has responded that those who object to these abuses are not applying a fair standard to the NT, arguing that the authors of the NT are relying upon midrashic interpretations when they force Jesus into Tanach. They will admit that Jesus did not fulfill Hosea 11:1 on a literal level, the p’shat, when he returned from Egypt, but Matthew is giving a midrash. This is an absurd argument that does nothing more than impose upon Tanach whatever the reader desires, which absurdity can be shown by applying the same standard to the New Testament, from which it can be proven that President Barack Obama is the Second Coming.

It must be noted before proceeding with this exercise that Christians quite often argue that the New Testament books are Jewish books. They are akin to the Hebrew Scriptures. For this reason, it is not unreasonable to apply the same manipulations to that book as are applied by them to Tanach. So, one may omit inconvenient parts of passages or sentences that would establish the context of a verse or partial verse. Similarly, if a Christian were to object that President Obama did not fulfill New Testament prophecy by coming in the clouds of glory or bringing the dead back to life for judgment, the answer will be that he will perform that at the Third Coming, but we can know that he will come back again, because he fulfilled these prophecies—midrashim—in his lifetime, and that hints of him can be found all over the New Testament.

One might object to the use of Luke or Acts in this exercise, inasmuch as the author was Greek, not Jewish. However, one excuse Christians bring for the scriptural abuses of Matthew is that he was quoting from the Greek. From this, one can derive two things. First, one can make a midrash on the Greek, which makes Luke fair game. Second, the original meaning does not matter; one can make a midrash on mistranslations and misunderstandings. If the English translation obscures the meaning of the Hebrew, this is of no matter. The midrashic interpretation must still be counted as a legitimate interpretation. It follows also that if one finds a meaning in Portuguese that he prefers, he is free to base his interpretation on the Portuguese or any other language that might allow him to push his own meaning onto a passage. These matters having been addressed, the midrashim follow.

To those that doubt that President Obama was the Second Coming the following proofs may be sufficient. First, a great controversy arose over the birthplace of the president. This was to fulfill what was written in the Christian Scriptures: “…when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from” (John 7:27). The literalist and simpleton may respond by saying that this scripture has nothing to do with President Obama and is not even a prophecy, that it requires no further fulfillment. The answer to them is obvious:

It’s a midrash!

By virtue of being President of the United States, Barack Obama was a powerful figure. This was to fulfill what was written: “From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). This is an obvious reference to the White House and Air Force One. To those that object:

It’s a midrash!

During his time in office, President Obama oversaw the killing of Osama bin Laden, then considered a great threat to the American people. This too was written in the Christian Scriptures: “…that we would be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us” (Luke 1:71). Of course, some might object that the entire prophecy was not quoted. That this speaks of one from the “house of his servant David” appears to be an omission, probably because the midrashist recognized that Obama is not descended from David. But this objection comes from one that does not read the four levels of Jewish interpretation. Clearly Matthew did not need to quote all of Hosea 11:1 to create his midrash or the entire prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-15. The midrashits will say that the one that raises this objection is an ignoramus.

The Christian Scriptures prefigured the words of Hillary Rodham Clinton when it said of President Obama: “…the heaven was opened…” (Luke 3:21). It is clear that Secretary Clinton was speaking prophetically when she said that if then Candidate Obama were elected the heavens would open, the seas roll back, etc. This is a clear reference to the Second Coming as fulfilled in President Obama.

Moreover, one can see the character of the Second Coming in the actions of President Obama, the great care he had for the people. Jesus spoke of President Obama when he quoted the prophet Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free…” (Luke 4:18). The President brought good news to the poor through welfare programs. He released captives through the presidential pardon. He brought recovery of the sight to the blind through Obamacare. (This is just a general statement of healing.) And he let the oppressed go free by welcoming refugees to America. Of course, it is obvious that these things were not said about President Obama or the Second Coming, but the response will be:

It’s a midrash!

Of course this exercise might appear to be silly, and indeed it is a fair bit. But the underlying point must be considered. The Christian argument for midrash does not follow any rules other than necessity. This exercise makes the New Testament dance to the tune of a fictitious person that reveres the former president. However, this is exactly how the Christian treats the holy words of HaShem. He attempts to make Tanach dance to his own tune, stripping passages of any inconveniences, including context under the guise of midrash. By this method, scripture can mean anything one wishes it to mean.

Undeniably, multiple levels of understanding exist when reading Tanach. This is not a license to read whatever one wishes into the text, however. It is absurdity to read Jesus into texts by relying on mistranslations and removing the passages from their context. Such reading is not midrash but eisegesis. Torah is not meant to prop up one’s preëxisting notions. It is not a journal into which one puts his own thoughts; it is a book from which one gets the Teaching of HaShem.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in Jim | 46 Comments

Is the Jewish Bible a Mystery Novel?

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Is the Jewish Bible a Mystery Novel?

Christian missionaries read the Jewish Bible as if it were a mystery novel. The Bible presents the missionary with an enigmatic puzzle that needs to be unraveled. Only the missionary knows that Jesus is the answer before he or she begins reading. The trick is to try to see Jesus behind every symbol and every metaphor that the poetic authors of the Bible bequeathed to us. When Jesus is “discovered”, the Jewish Bible has achieved its purpose and can now be summarily put aside.

But is the Jewish Bible a really a “mystery novel”? Is it one big “I spy” game in which the reader has to try to find that elusive Jesus? Is the Jewish Bible the ancient version of “Where is Waldo/Jesus”?

The missionary approach to the 53rd chapter in the book of Isaiah illustrates the Christian attitude towards the…

View original post 705 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment