1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Birthday of the Sun

The fact that the most prominent holiday in the Christian yearly cycle is pagan in origin is relatively well known. Some Christian leaders argue for an abandonment of this pagan celebration while most observe this holiday and use the time as an opportunity to call attention to the message of Christianity.

Many churchmen justify the adoption of a pagan holiday with the argument that this was simply a historical circumstance. The expanding Church found that so many people were already celebrating this time, so instead of attempting to repress this celebration, the Church converted it from paganism to Christianity. The “conversion” of the holiday was achieved by artificially associating the Christian message with the observance of the holiday. This merger turned the commemoration of the birthday of the sun into a celebration that commemorates the birthday of the “son”.

Are these two celebrations really so different? If we look into the heart of the pagan celebration and worship we will see that no conversion was achieved. The Christian celebration is essentially just as idolatrous as the pagan celebration. The only change that was achieved was that the attention given to one idol is now turned to another.

The pagans chose their deities in the following manner. People would be inspired and overawed by various entities in the natural world. Be it the power and radiance of the sun, the mighty sound of thunder, the majestic beauty of a river or the magical appeal of the dark forces of the night. Instead of recognizing that these are but creations of the same Creator who granted us all the gift of existence the pagan would bend in submission towards the mysterious awe and majesty projected by these entities.

The heart of Christianity, in all of its manifestations, is the submission towards the aura projected by a certain human being. No one saw that this person create the world and no one saw this person standing as a second person in a triune godhead. These were theories developed by hearts that were already bent in submission to the aura associated with the personality of Jesus.

The worshippers of the sun and the worshippers of the “son” are both engaged in the same type of worship. They are both allowing themselves to be overwhelmed by the attributes inherent in a fellow citizen of this universe.

The witness of the Jew is that everything in this universe and all of the majesty, beauty, mystery, charisma and holiness that these entities may possess are all but gifts from the One Creator who stands above and beyond all of nature while at the same time sustaining and nurturing every detail of existence. It is to Him, and to Him alone, that our worship is due. Not only our own worship, but even those entities that overwhelm men with their majesty, beauty, holiness and mystery, they too, owe all worship to the One Creator.

The day will yet come when everyone and everything rejoices in the worship of the Creator (Psalm 98:7). May it happen soon and in our days.

1. Page 4

Brown addresses Maimonides’ statement that Jews must believe in God as
an “only one (- absolute unity): “There is no doubt that this reaction was
due to exaggerated, unbiblical, “Christian” beliefs that gave Jews the
impression Christians worshipped three gods.”

Brown would have his readers believe that Maimonides’ statement is a
“reaction. He would have his readers believe that this “reaction” was due to an incorrect understanding of Christianity.

I have a difficult time imagining a statement that would be more
offensive and insulting to Jews and to Judaism. Brown has “no doubt”
that the core belief of Judaism is a “reaction” to another belief
system. That would be like saying that there is no doubt that Christians revere Jesus as a “reaction” to the Moslem reverence of Mohammed. Or that the reason two people got married to each other was to avoid marrying someone else.

The Jewish people are married to their God. They met Him at Sinai and
their hearts are pledged to Him ever since. We know our God and we do not have
to “react” to redefine our God against other belief systems.

Another underlying misconception that needs to be cleared up is the
idea that Maimonides felt threatened in any way by Christianity, as if
Christianity is a belief system that somehow loomed large and threatening on the horizon of Maimonides’ thought-process. This is false. It is obvious from the writings of Maimonides that the theology of Christianity in no way intimidated him. He viewed a belief system that deifies a human as something that hardly deserves mention. If Maimonides ever felt the need to “react”, it was not to Christianity.

Finally, a “correct” understanding of Christianity would have done
nothing to change Maimonides’ views on the matter. Every form of Trinitarian Christianity attributes deity to a person that walked this earth. This concept, however it is presented, is the very antithesis of Judaism.

2. Page 4

Brown argues against the identification of God as an absolute unity as
if this question would somehow be tied to the distinction between the two
Hebrew words “echad” (- one) versus “yachid” (- unique, alone). Brown accuses Maimonides of inserting the word “yachid” whereas the word “echad” is the word that the Bible uses.

This argument is irrelevant. The famous thirteen principles of faith as
they are printed in the popular Hebrew were not formulated by Maimonides. Maimonides wrote a lengthy essay in Arabic, which was summarized in Hebrew by an anonymous author. When we read Maimonides’ Hebrew work that addresses these matters (Yad Hachazaka, Yesodei Hatorah 1:7) we clearly see that Maimonides did not get confused between “echad” and “yachid”. The fact is that the word“yachid” could refer to a compound unity just as easily as the word “echad”, so
changing the word would not have helped Maimonides in any case. The point that Maimonides is making is that unless we are speaking of an absolute unity, then the word “echad” (- one) is only a relative term. Maimonides understood that the Shema is not using relative terminology to speak of God.

3. Page 6

Brown argues that the Shema (-Hear O Israel…Deuteronomy 6:4) only says that God is alone and not that He is absolutely One.
This point is also irrelevant. Which God is the Shema referring to? The One that the Jews believe in, the One that took them out of Egypt and who revealed Himself at Sinai, Him alone – and no one else. Who is excluded? If someone were to take a graven image and claim that this is “one and the same” with the God of Israel, is that not excluded? When Jeroboam pointed to the calf and said “this is who took you out of Egypt” (1Kings 12:28), was that not excluded? When the Buddhists point to a stone statue of Buddha and claim that this is the incarnation of the Creator of heaven and earth, is that not excluded by the “one” of Shema? The “one” of Shema points back to the Sinai revelation. At that revelation God made clear to the Jewish people who it is that they should be directing their devotion to. It was not Jesus. Furthermore, at Sinai God gave the Jewish people to understand that everything in the heaven and earth are but His creations. Any theology that justifies worship of an inhabitant of this earth is precluded by the Sinai revelation and by the Shema.

4. Page 7

Brown claims that the Jewish rejection of the trinity is the result of a “gut
level negative reaction to anything Christian”. Where did this negative
reaction start from? According to the Christian scriptures, the Jews rejected Christianity because it did not fit with their understanding of God, an understanding that preceded Christianity.

Another point to consider is the fact that the far more likely scenario is that the Church adopted belief in the trinity as a gut level negative reaction to anything Jewish.

The same Council of Nicea  that adopted the trinity as a Christian belief, was plagued with a gut level negative reaction to anything Jewish. The same Church Council that ratified the trinity also prohibited celebration of Easter in conjunction with Passover. The basis for this decision was not some scholarly calculation or an esoteric argument. I will allow Eusubius, the Church historian who was present at that Council, to speak for himself:

“And these are the words with which the Emperor addressed
the assembly at Nicea; “Why should we follow in the footsteps of these people who are scorned by God, to celebrate our holy festival together with them? Is there any greater impertinence than this, that these hated Jews should be able to say that we cannot celebrate and observe our festival unless we follow their calculations?” (De Vita Constantini 3:2).

Hatred of Jews and Judaism was reason enough to move this Church Council to change their practices. Is it not likely that the vote against Arius (who opposed belief in the trinity) was also influenced by this hatred of Jews?

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

I. 37. Page 110

Brown’s compares of the accusation that the Christian Scriptures is a book of hate to the anti-Semitic accusation that the Talmud is a book of immorality. This analogy is outrageous. No one who revered the Talmud ever read it as a license to be immoral, but many people who are still considered authorities on the Christian Scriptures read it as a license to hate Jews.

There is another relevant question that must be asked here. The entire purpose of communication is to transport ideas from the mind of the communicator to his intended audience. The words the communicator uses are not the end-goal of the act of communicating. The words are just a means to reach the end-goal. The ultimate purpose of any communication is the ideas that the target audience walks away with. With this information in front of us, we can appreciate why any wise communicator will evaluate the world-view of his or her audience before deciding which words to use to get the message across. If you are speaking to a crowd that is deeply imbued with the principles of the essential equality of all people and the extreme value of human life and you tell them that the Jews are the children of the devil, you could perhaps expect them to reinterpret your words according to the principles that they hold dear (even that is a stretch). But if you are speaking to an audience that never heard of these principles, and you teach them that the Jews are the children of the devil, what message do you expect them to hear?

Now the Christian scriptures are in essence a communication from the first Christian teachers to Christians in all generations. Did the authors of these books have any inkling as to how their words would be understood in future generations? Did these authors have any idea how the mind-set of their intended audience will influence the way their words are understood? If they did, then they were partners to the murderous activities of the Church. If they were myopic, simpleminded people who could not foresee how their words would be understood by the very audience that they were addressing, then how can anyone attach significance and value to their words?

Brown quotes Jesus as saying “love your enemies”. Where does Jesus say anything positive about his own enemies? Where does Jesus acknowledge the moral responsibility to question his authority? After all, if he wasn’t who he claimed he was (which he wasn’t) then obeying him is the most grievous sin against God. Together with the false prophets of history, Jesus could not recognize the simple truth that God desires an honest heart.

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