An Open Letter to Brother Gilbert

Posted on January 29, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

An Open Letter to Brother Gilbert

I want to open this letter by welcoming you to the discussion forum on this blog. I strongly disagree with almost everything you wrote but I commend you for your respectful (if condescending) tone. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish that you merit to join the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem and find comfort for your recent pain that you mentioned.

This blog has been around for almost five years now and there are about 400 articles on this blog. I have already addressed some of the issues that you raised in your comments so I will take the liberty of providing links to articles that I have written in the past.

You speak of the mission of the Jewish people. You tell me that it is not to “reject Jesus”. I agree with you – the mission of the Jewish people is to encourage all of mankind to unite in one worship – it so happens to be that the worship we are commissioned to encourage is not the worship of Jesus.

 

You speak of the Gentiles not needing Torah observance and in this I agree with you – but why would they need Jesus?

You tell us that it is better for us not to convince Catholic Jews to give up their belief in Jesus. We are attempting to show Jews and Gentiles alike that every iota of their devotion ought to be directed to the One Creator of all – if Jesus feels left out – I guess that’s his problem.

You say that the treatment of Jews who believe as Christians by the Jewish community is inconsistent with their treatment of Jews who belong to other faiths. I know of no other faith that attempts to redefine Judaism.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/messianic-discrimination-a-response-to-james/

You claim that Mashiach is different for different communities within the covenant community of Israel – this is inaccurate. We all agree about the essentials – it is only in peripheral areas where there are some disagreements.

You tell me that the Pope apologized of the evils that his institution perpetrated against God’s first-born son – but did he look into the roots of the sin of his institution?

You argue that the worship that the Catholic Church encourages is not idolatrous because they don’t believe that man became god but they believe the opposite.

These semantics are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Idolatry is not an abstract sin – it is a sin of the heart. The feelings in the human heart that the Catholic Church encourages are not the feelings that we were taught to plant in our hearts at Sinai.

You tell me that I don’t understand what Catholics believe. You are right – but this I do know – that they consider my worship of the Creator of heaven and earth to be misdirected – and that is all I need to know for the purpose of this discussion. Do they not believe that no one comes to the Father without the services of Jesus?

You say that you see no opposition to Catholic beliefs and the kabbala. But the people who study kabbala and have immersed themselves in her teachings recognize that the worship your institution is encouraging is idolatrous. Your quotation of Jewish sources to support a belief that the same authors of these sources opposed with their very lives is not ethical.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/context-and-kabbalah/

You speak of some Lubavitchers who believe their Rebbe is divine. And this has been called out by the rabbis of Chabad and identified as idolatry. Just for the record – don’t you recognize that these people came to their conclusions not by first studying the texts of Judaism – but their “conclusions” began with their obsession with the Rebbe- a striking parallel to the methods that you use to find justification for your devotion from Jewish texts.

You say that you know of no official ruling from the Jewish community that labels Jesus as a false prophet. The Jewish community expressed this belief by giving their lives rather than accept him – many times throughout history. The Jewish people recognized that the devotion that the Catholic Church was encouraging is the deepest violation of the covenant we share with God.

Brother Gilbert. I ask you to please consider – why were our ancestors chosen by God? What was the mission that He entrusted us with? And what methods did he set in place to ensure the integrity of our mission?

Take care

Yisroel Blumenthal

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 Correspondence | 127 Comments

The New Covenant – Excerpt from Supplement to Contra Brown

Posted on January 29, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

IV. 40. Objection 5.34

“If the death of Jesus really inaugurated the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, then why hasn’t it been fulfilled?”

Brown summarizes his response with the following words: “In short, the new covenant was established two thousand years ago in incipient form and it continues to advance to its ultimate fulfillment.”

Brown bases his reasoning on the fact that a simple reading of Jeremiah (as well as some of the other prophecies in the Jewish Bible) would seem to indicate that the return from the Babylonian exile would usher in the ultimate Messianic era. Since this did not happen, Brown contends that there was a partial fulfillment with the return from Babylon while the full fulfillment is yet to come.

To quote Brown again: “Jeremiah (much like Ezekiel) expected that the return of the exiles from Babylon would be so glorious that it would be followed by the transformation of the nation – through the inauguration of the new covenant (see also Ezekiel 36:24-32) and the reign of the Messiah – leading ultimately to the transformation of the world. Were Jeremiah and Ezekiel false prophets? God forbid! Rather, what they prophesied did happen only not in the expected measure or scope. In other words, in the same way that the return of the exiles did happen, but not in the expected measure or scope, and in the same way the prophesied rebuilding of the Temple did take place, but not with the expected glory (see esp. Ezekiel 40-48, and cf. vol.2, 3.17), in the very same way the Messiah did come and inaugurate the new covenant – just as was prophesied! – but not with the expected glory or scope.”  

There are three critical flaws in Brown’s interpretation of the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah.

The first flaw is that the Scriptural problem that Brown addresses with his interpretation was already addressed in the book of Daniel (ch. 9). Daniel expected that all of the prophecies of comfort will come to fruition at the close of the Babylonian exile. God sent an angel to inform him that this was not to be. The nation will have to undergo a preliminary purging process of 490 years before the final purging process can begin. Only with the close of the 490 years, the destruction of the city and the Temple and a lengthy refining process will it be time for the final redemption (Daniel 9:24-27, 11:31-35, 12;1-3). Daniel uses the exact same phraseology that Jeremiah uses to introduce the new covenant prophecies to let us know that he is talking of the same end-time event (Daniel 12:1 – Jeremiah 30:7).

According to the simple reading of Scripture, any prophecies of comfort that are not explicitly associated with the return from the Babylonian exile, do not apply to that return, but rather to the future, final return, as explained in the book of Daniel.

The second flaw with Brown’s interpretation is internal inconsistency. There are many features of the new covenant prophecies, and if we accept the interpretation that requires a partial fulfillment with the return of the Babylonian exile, we will realize that all of these were fulfilled soon after the return, and in direct relation to the return. Why then should we assume that the new covenant aspect of the prophecy is separated from the rest of the predictions by several centuries, and unrelated to the return in any way? How would this comfort those who returned from the exile?

For the record: The new covenant prophecy of Jeremiah 31 is also described in Deuteronomy 30:1-10, Jeremiah 3;14-18, 32:36-44, 33:1-26, Ezekiel 11:17-20, 34:20-31, 36:1-38, 37:15-28, (see also Hosea 2:16-22, Jeremiah 50:4,5).

Some of the central features of these prophecies are:

Return of the exiles – Jeremiah 31:7,22 – Deuteronomy 30:3, Jeremiah 3:14, 32:37, 33:7, Ezekiel 11:17, 34:13, 36:24, 37:21.

The planting of Israel in their land – Jeremiah 31:26 – 32:41, Ezekiel 34:29.

A great blessing of abundance – Jeremiah 31:11,24 – Deuteronomy 30:9, Jeremiah 33:9, Ezekiel 34:27, 36:35.

The joy of God in bestowing the blessing – Jeremiah 31:27 – Deuteronomy 30:9, Jeremiah 32:41.

Affirmation of the unique position of Israel as God’s nation – Jeremiah 31:35 – Jeremiah 3:17, 32:38, Ezekiel 34:30, 36:28, 37:28,

Unity amongst the tribes of Israel – Jeremiah 31:30 – Jeremiah 32:39, 33:7, Ezekiel 34:23, 37:15-20.

The beauty and glory of Israel and her land – Jeremiah 33:9, Ezekiel 37:36.

Peace and security – Jeremiah 31:39 – Jeremiah 32:37, 33:6, Ezekiel 34:25, 37:26.

Israel’s repentance – Jeremiah 31:18 – Deuteronomy 30:2, Jeremiah 3:14.

All of these are directly related to the return from Babylon (if we are to assume a partial fulfillment). So why should we assume that the new covenant stands as an unrelated event? The fact is that the Scripture itself describes a partial fulfillment of the new covenant at the time of the return from Babylon. In Haggai 2:5, God declares that His spirit stands in our midst (compare with Ezekiel 26:27). This declaration was proclaimed to the generation that returned from the Babylonian captivity, centuries before the inception of Christianity.

The Talmud relates that the urge to worship idols was purged from Israel during that generation. In fact, in the prophetic books (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Ezra, Nehemiah) that address the generation who returned from Babylon we find no criticism of Israel for worshipping idols. This stands in stark contrast to the generations which preceded the return from Babylon. Since the return from Babylon, idolatry has not been a Jewish vice. If there had to be a partial fulfillment of the new covenant with the return from Babylon, this would be the Scriptural explanation.

The third critical flaw with Brown’s interpretation is that he turned the new covenant on its ear. The prophet describes the new covenant as something that is unique to the Jewish people. It will set them apart from other nations (Jeremiah 31:32 – and THEY shall be to Me for a nation). According to Brown, the new covenant joins the Gentiles with the Jewish people. The prophets describe the new covenant as a positive development in the history of Israel. Brown’s version of the new covenant ushered in a period of darkness for Israel (in the sense of persecution), and for the Gentiles (in the sense of crooked theology, and the guilt of persecution). The prophets describe the new covenant as something that is impossible to disobey. Brown’s version of the new covenant is easily disobeyed. (Those Christians who claim that followers of Jesus who leave the following: “never really believed”, just reveal their own pettiness. While these followers were part of the following, no one identified any fault in their loyalty.) Finally, the prophets describe the new covenant as a time when it will no longer be necessary to teach the knowledge of God amongst the people of Israel. According to Brown, the new covenant launched the most intense missionary campaign that the world has ever seen.

A straightforward reading of the new covenant prophecies in context reveals that the advent of Christianity is the polar opposite of the new covenant promised by the Jewish prophets.

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 Scripture | 27 Comments

A Chain Cannot be Stronger than its Weakest Link – Response to David

Posted on January 27, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

This letter is a response to David’s comments – you can read them here –

2015/01/26 at 11:25 am     2015/01/26 at 5:33 pm

David

I find this conversation to be most instructive so I have taken the liberty of making it into its own post. I will request that no one comment on this post unless it is directly related to the subject at hand.

We disagree over several points. You take issue with my assertion that the office of prophecy is subject to the Law of Moses and thus subject to decisions made by the authorized arbitrators of the Law of Moses.

There are two different points that we disagree about.

1 – A) The entire concept of prophecy being under any jurisdiction sounds wrong to you. Isn’t prophecy God talking – how could God be placed under anybody’s jurisdiction? B) As a derivative of this position you believe that prophets can deliver a new Law while I believe that prophets cannot deliver a new law without contradicting the Law of Moses. C) I am not sure if you stated the following but its seems that you believe that Moses has no more authority than any other prophet – after all it is all God’s word so how can one word be more authoritative than another. D) You further believe that the obligation to obey a prophet is a duty toward God that stands apart from the Law of Moses while I believe that the obligation to obey a prophet is dictated by the Law of Moses.

2 – You don’t believe that the arbitrators of the Law have any authority aside from disputes that are presented to them in the realm of bloodshed or perhaps monetary disputes. You seem to believe that any aspect of the Law in which the Scriptures do not explicitly grant the arbitrators authority is outside of the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.

We also disagree about the canonization of Scripture. Since you believe that the Law does not legislate anything about the office of prophecy – this brings you to the conclusion that the Law of Moses provided no guidance on the canonization process and that the arbitrators of the Law played no role in this process. When I asked you for the basis of your acceptance of Scripture you responded – because the books themselves show that they are from God and because the Jewish people accepted the books of Scripture.

I demonstrated to you that these answers are not answers. A chain cannot be stronger than its weakest link. If your acceptance of Scripture is based on your own assessment of the books – then whenever you are quoting Scripture – you are in essence quoting yourself – it is as if you are saying: this book is God-given because I so decided so you better obey what it says here. There is no reason that anyone should take you seriously when you quote Scripture to them. Your second answer is no answer because you have not provided a reason to accept that which the Jewish people accepted.

Another area in which we disagree surfaced in your last comment and that is that you believe that the new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah must mean a new Law. The Scriptures testify against this belief of yours as we shall see.

When I say that the Law has jurisdiction over prophecy I obviously do not mean that the Law dictates to God how He should or shouldn’t speak to the people. What I mean is that the Law dictates to the people how they should receive or reject claims to prophecy.

The Law of Moses dictates to the people when it is that they should reject a claim to prophecy. This in and of itself tells us that the status of Moses as a prophet is inherently higher than that of subsequent prophets. To illustrate – if a prophet arises and stops the sun in the sky as did Joshua and then claims that a prophet could have a prediction fail to come to pass and still be an authentic prophet – Moses tells us that this man is a liar. And we believe Moses over this man because of Exodus 19:9.

Now, again, God’s word is God’s word and there is no hierarchy in God’s word but the credibility of Moses as a prophet was more openly established by God than God would do for any subsequent prophet. Therefore, if a prophet attempts to establish his or credibility through a miracle and then contradict Moses, we know that the miracle is a test from God to see if we love Him and God does not want us to follow the teaching of this new prophet.

We know that Moses’ law is eternal because Deuteronomy 30 makes it clear that even into the time of restoration it is Moses’ Law that is relevant (see also Deuteronomy 29:28 and Malachi 3:22). No authentic prophet ever gave us a new set of rules to follow. They predicted that various things will happen but they did not give a new set of instructions. Their instructions were always to follow the Law that has already been given to us. In some instances the prophets gave instructions that were relevant to the people they were talking to on a short term basis – and obedience to these prophetic directives is subsumed under the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15.

Your “proof” from Jeremiah 26:4,5 fails simply because the word “and” is not present making it clear that obedience to the prophet is subsumed under the Law. Furthermore, if this would be proof that obedience to a prophet is separate from the Law then you would have to acknowledge that observance of the Sabbath is separate from the Law as “evidenced” from Ezekiel 20:11,12 as well as Nehemiah 9:12,13. It is obvious that the fact that when one detail of the Law is stated apart from the general Law it is still subsumed under the general Law.

Now, I acknowledge that God didn’t have to operate this way. Before Moses came along God delivered instructions through prophets that He expected people to keep (such as to Noah and Abraham). And God delivered messages to nations that are not under the Law of Moses through prophets (such as Jonah’s message to Nineveh). But since Israel was granted the Law of Moses, God dictated all of their activities including the reaction to claims to prophecy, through the Law of Moses.

Now let us approach your problem with the authority that I attribute to the arbitrators of the Law. First let me attempt to articulate my position in this matter. My understanding is that the Law is applicable both to individuals and to communities. Just as an individual needs to use his or her faculties of comprehension of the Law when confronted with a situation such as a claim to prophecy and this individual is enjoined by God through the Law of Moses to set aside other persuasions, this same applies on the level of the community.

For purpose of illustration:

A prophet arises and claims that he was sent by God. As a sign that he was sent by God, this prophet stops the sun in middle of the sky for six whole hours. Then a minor prediction of this prophet fails to materialize. The magnitude of the miracle of stopping the sun may persuade us to ignore the failed prediction but the Law dictates otherwise. If the person would choose to follow God they would be exercising their power to comprehend the Law and to apply it.

When a community attempts to obey the Law they also turn to their communal ability to comprehend the Law and to apply it and this ability resides with the arbitrators of the Law. Not because of their authority, but because these are the people that the community recognizes as possessing a superior understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the Law. Yes, I agree, that if an individual sees that the arbitrators of the law are ruling against the Law then this individual is obligated to reject their decision. But God’s promise to our community is that there will always be a covenant community that is loyal to Him and to His Law so there will always be arbitrators of the Law that are in line with God’s Law.

When the Law dictates that we execute a violator of the Law it is clear that this injunction is an injunction to the community and not to every individual – the commandment of Deuteronomy 16:18 makes no sense otherwise. A community is not a mob. It functions under guidance of leaders.

In a situation where the recognized central leadership of Israel rendered a decision then the Law of Deuteronomy 17:11 would require that we obey that decision. If as you claim that this is limited to matters of bloodshed and monetary disputes – why would the one who disobeys them be put to death? Let him pay up.

The reason I accept Scripture is because I trust that God guided the covenant community right when they rendered their decision on these prophets and their books. But you believe that the covenant community can be completely mistaken – I know this because you accept Jesus, a man who was rejected by the covenant community. This being the case, you have no basis for accepting the Jewish Scripture. Your argument that the Jewish followers of Jesus represent the true covenant community was refuted by God when He allowed the covenantal signs of Sabbath observance and circumcision to disappear from that community.

One last point before I close off- a new covenant is not a new law. If it would be a new law you would need to find a new law in Deuteronomy 28:69 and in 2Kings 23;3, – and since there is none – it is obvious that a new covenant simply means a new commitment not a new law.

I imagine you will take issue with what I have written here and I encourage you to keep on writing. Please try to articulate why you disagree with me. Because it is discussions such as these that lead us all to greater clarity and to a deeper understanding of the truth.

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 Correspondence | 43 Comments

A Basic Refutation to Missionary Claims

Posted on January 22, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

http://www.judaismresources.com/video-and-audio-lectures.html

Posted in Videos | Leave a comment

Cut Off

Posted on January 21, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Cut Off

Replacement theology is on its way out amongst many Christians. Many Christians are coming to believe that the Jewish people are still chosen by God. I see this as a positive development in Christianity. With the stranglehold of the establishment Church broken, Christians are reading the Bible on their own and coming to their own conclusions. It is not easy for people to begin thinking in a direction that they are not accustomed to, but as the decades and centuries move on, progress is being made. More and more Christians are discovering that the Bible teaches doctrine that is different than what is taught by the establishment Church. This process influences the Churches as well, who realign their doctrines to the Biblical truths discovered by their supporters. It is my belief that the truth of God will eventually triumph completely and Christians will learn that Jesus was not who he…

View original post 337 more words

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Heirs of a Legacy – Excerpt from The Council of My Nation

Posted on January 21, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

 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.

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 | 27 Comments

The Land of Our Ancestors

Posted on January 15, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

The Land of Our Ancestors

 

 

“And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money. And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.” (1Kings 21:1-3)

Naboth’s response to Ahab was not merely a mundane refusal to sell a piece of property; it was a lesson about life.

You see, Ahab had lead Israel into idolatry. He encouraged his people to give…

View original post 667 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Identifying the Teachers of the Law – Excerpt from Council of My Nation

Posted on January 15, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

Identifying the Teachers of the Law

This brings us to the final function that Eternal Israel performs in relation to the Law, namely the identification of her leaders. The teachers of the Law serve as a crucial component in Israel’s relationship with the Law. These leaders are the arbitrators of the Law, and their judgment enables the nation to apply the Law to living situations. These leaders guide Eternal Israel in dispensing her duty in the realm of preservation of the Law. It is these leaders who set forth the Rabbinic enactments that serve to perpetuate the Law. And it is these leaders who direct the ongoing living discussion, preserving the authenticity of the discussion so that the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob (Deuteronomy 33:4) is passed on the way it was received.

 

 

The first body of arbitrators of the law was established by Moses (Exodus 18:25, Deuteronomy 1:15). Since then, the nation always had people to whom they can turn with their questions relating to the Law. The leaders of each generation recognize their responsibility to provide guidance for the next generation. The imperative to educate students who can shoulder the mantle of leadership is a major element in the lives of Israel’s leaders. The chain of leadership passes on from one generation to the next through the academies and study halls of Eternal Israel.

 

 

The system of choosing Israel’s leaders is not a formalized process, it is a living process. Scripture informs us that even when Israel was enslaved in Egypt she possessed identifiable leaders (Exodus 3:16, 12:21). It is doubtful that as slaves under Pharaoh that the people had any formal election system. The straightforward reading of these passages implies that these leaders attained their position through a natural process. These were men who had earned the respect of their brethren and whom the society turned to for leadership. When Moses established a more formal system of leadership, he did not override the nation’s natural system of leadership, instead Moses appointed men who were already acknowledged by the nation as her leaders (Numbers 11:16, Deuteronomy 1:13).

 

 

From the times of Moses until today the leadership of Israel is chosen by a spontaneous and natural process. Within the parameters of any given community which lives the Law, some people will necessarily stand as examples to their peers. As the nation participates in the ongoing living discussion, proficiency in the Law stands as a very valuable commodity. Eventually, some people will gain the confidence and respect of society as representatives of the spirit of the Law, and as experts in understanding the Law. This process occurs on many different tiers. Someone with little or no background in study of the Law, will be incapable of determining the precise caliber of his friend’s Torah acumen, but he is certainly qualified to voice an opinion concerning his friend’s character. People with more Torah knowledge will be able to offer a limited evaluation as to the quality of Torah knowledge of their peers. Those proficient in Torah knowledge will be capable of gauging the abilities of their contemporaries with greater exactitude. Each segment of the population looks to the appraisals of those more proficient then themselves with much respect. The opinion of those who have already proven their mastery of the Law will certainly carry the most weight, but the nation will want to see for themselves.

 

 

As long as the nation remained in geographical proximity, and the living discussion was united and cohesive, certain individuals or groups of individuals were able to gain the collective respect of the nation as a whole. These men constituted the bodies of central leadership, and in these men resided the nation’s collective authority. The natural process worked in synchrony with a formal ordination process through which the mantle of Torah leadership passed from one generation to the next. It is only with such universal authority that decisions could be made on behalf of Eternal Israel. The establishment of the national holidays of Channuka and Purim was only possible when the nation was collectively united under one body of spiritual leadership. Central leadership was a necessity for the institution of the Rabbinic decrees. And it is only a body of leadership empowered by the nation as a whole, who has the authority to accept a book into the corpus of Jewish scripture.

 

 

As the nation dispersed, and the national living discussion fragmented into local circles of discussion, the power of the central leadership went into decline. The people still looked to a central body of leadership for the monthly and yearly decisions pertaining to the calendar, but that remained the only function of the central leadership. In fact, the last act of Eternal Israel’s contiguous assembly of central leadership was the arrangement of a permanent calendar. Before the Byzantine persecutions stamped out the last vestige of the nation’s high court, Hillel the Prince (not to be confused with Hillel the Elder, his ancestor), established the calendar we follow today.

 

 

The decline of the power of the central leadership was a slow process and did not move entirely downhill. Throughout the period of decline, the central leadership underwent two major peaks of resurgence. The brief respite from persecution that the nation experienced in the times of Rabbi Judah the Prince, and again in the times of Rav Ashi enabled the nation to reassert a measure of unified authority. During these two time periods (approximately 175 CE and 400 CE respectively) the leading scholars of each community were able to convene under the leadership of these two Torah giants. These conventions of scholars were recognized by the nation as incorporating the collective authority of Eternal Israel. With possession of this measure of power these two assemblies were able to ratify the Mishna and the Talmud as anchors and foundations for Eternal Israel’s ongoing living discussion.

 

 

Since then, each community identified their own leaders. With the passage of time, the various communities interacted with each other and learned to appreciate the leaders of localities other than their own. In this way the nation was able to come to a consensus in the evaluation of national leaders. In the lifetime of Rashi the Jews in Iraq might not have heard of him, and they certainly didn’t know enough about him to properly appreciate his contribution to the living discussion. As Rashi’s books spread, the collective Torah wisdom of the nation was able to come to a consensus in their evaluation of Rashi. The same living process repeats itself, and continues to repeat itself as the dispersed nation continuously calibrates her evaluation of various scholars and their written works. In this way, Eternal Israel continues to discharge her duty towards the Law by identifying the leaders who embody her spirit and who know her letter.

 

 

Just as God entrusted Israel with the task of identifying the arbitrators of the Law, so did He charge Israel with the duty of recognizing His prophets. The process of authenticating the verity of a prophet is legislated by the Law (Deuteronomy 13:2-6, 18:18-22). The nation, under the guidance of her arbitrators of the Law would be required to determine the legitimacy of any claim to prophecy. This process was far from smooth. More often than not, God appointed the prophet to deliver stinging words of rebuke. The harshest criticisms were frequently directed at the most powerful people in the society. There was a tremendous motivation to silence the prophet or to dispute his validity. In most cases the rulers of Israel absorbed the censure of the prophets without moving to silence them (1Samuel 3:18, 13:13,14, 15:24,28, 2Samuel 12:7-10, 1Kings 20:42, 21:27, 2Kings 20:17, Jeremiah 26:18,19, Haggai 1:12, 2Chronicles 12:5,6 19:2, 20:37). In some cases the rulers persecuted the prophets (1Kings 12:4, 18:4, Jeremiah 20:2, 26:21,22, 29:25, 36:26, 2Chronicles 16:10, 24:21). The general society of the nation was also upbraided by the prophets on a regular basis. In many cases the populace recognized the prophet’s authority to administer the reproach (Judges. 2:1-5, 10:11-16, 1Samuel 12:19, Jeremiah 26:17, 38:11, 2 Chronicles 28:9-5) while in other situations they actively opposed the prophet (Jeremiah 11:19, 18:18, 26:11, 38:4). The hostility towards the prophets was generally instigated by corrupt arbitrators of the Law, and by men who had falsely laid claim to prophecy (Jeremiah 6:14, 8:8-11,14:13, 23:13,14, 26:8, 27:14, 28:1-4, 29:8,9,21, Ezekiel 13:1-16, Amos 7:10-13). In the confusion generated by the heat of the immediate situation many elements in society fought the prophets tooth and nail. But as the dust settled and time went on, the voice of those loyal to God was eventually heard and embraced. The people were able to sort out the genuine prophets from the frauds and to distinguish between the corrupt leaders and those who truly represented God’s Law. That is how we have scripture today.

 

 

Although we no longer have prophets to lead us we still have leaders who guide the nation in matters of the spirit. In many situations these men are the same leaders who arbitrate the Law, but in some situations the spiritual leaders did not make a particular mark as arbitrators of the Law. These leaders rebuked, encouraged, and provided guidance in our general relationship with God. As with the prophets before them, some of these teachers encountered opposition amongst various elements of the population. And as with the prophets before them, with the passage of time, the nation came to appreciate the greatness of these holy men.

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 | 45 Comments

3 Challenges – excerpt from Supplement to Contra Brown

Posted on January 12, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

# 7 – The seventh line of reasoning relates to the prohibition against idolatry.

 

As a general rule, the argument about the authenticity of the traditions of Judaism is not very relevant to the debate between Judaism and Christianity. It is not necessary to believe in the traditions in order to reject the doctrines of the Church. The Bible itself provides more than enough evidence to refute the claims of Christianity. Historically, Jews who rejected the traditions of their fathers, (known as Karaites), were amongst the most vociferous opponents to Christianity. Conversely, there are Christians who accept the authenticity of many of the traditions and still believe in Jesus. It is clear that the traditions are not a central factor in the debate between Judaism and Christianity.

 

There is however one exception to this rule, and that is the tradition that defines the prohibition against idolatry. This tradition has been the central focus in the debate between Judaism and Christianity for the past 2000 years. When Jews chose death over Christianity, and tens of thousands made this choice, it was because they accepted the Jewish definition of the prohibition against idolatry. Amazingly, Brown never addresses this particular tradition in this book! The one detail of the traditions that plays such a critical role in the debate between Judaism and Christianity is not mentioned in this volume that purports to defend the Church against Jewish objections to Christianity that are based on the traditions!

 

This is all the more surprising in light of a communication that took place between Dr. Brown and myself ten years ago.

 

I presented the following challenge to Brown in August of 2001. (At that point in time, his projection for this series was that it would only contain three volumes, and it was the third volume that would include his arguments against the traditions, hence the reference to the third volume as opposed to the fifth.)

 

I will present you with a challenge. You are presently preparing the third volume of your book for publication. I did not see it, but I can tell you what it does not contain. I will list three objections to the Christian belief system which you were not planning to mention. Two of these objections lie at the heart of the Jewish resistance to any belief system aside from their own. Here they are.

1) The medium through which we learned that scripture is authentic is the testimony of our parents. These same people testified to us that there is a body of unwritten Mosaic law which is crucial in understanding how God wants us to live. If they lied about these unwritten traditions then why should we believe their testimony about scripture. (The Ibn Ezra articulates this argument in several places)

2) The one item which the Torah itself is most explicit and clear that we are to follow the testimony of our fathers, is the issue of “who are we to worship”. Scripture tells the witnesses of Sinai, “you should make it known to your children and children’s children”. It is obvious that God considered this a valid medium of transmitting information, that is the chain of parent to child. Once God explicitly designated a medium of transmitting information, we can be sure that He will ensure its preservation. Until today jews testify that God revealed Himself at Sinai as an absolute unity. All those who deviated from this tradition never claimed that with their worship they follow a tradition which goes back to Sinai. (This is the main point of the Jewish insistence on clinging to their belief system)

3) An honest reading of the NT will reveal that Jesus and his followers believed in, and observed the unwritten traditions which the Jews accepted as God‑given. (I hope to substantiate this at length later in this letter)   

 

At the time, Brown responded by accepting the challenge and assuring me that he will address these arguments in his upcoming volume. But he did not. He devotes one paragraph, in an end-note (#131) to the first objection (- see our response below in point #16). He touches upon one  limited aspect of the third of the three Jewish objections in the main body of the book (6.15 – see our response in point #69), but he completely ignored the second objection.

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 Correspondence, Critique | 45 Comments

Excerpt from The Elephant and the Suit

Posted on January 5, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

Dr. Brown’s Teaching on Biblical Interpretation

In Volume 2, on page 94, Dr. Brown presents a teaching on the correct method of Biblical interpretation: “…it would be highly unlikely ‑ to put it mildly‑ that the Lord would hang a major life‑critical Torah revising revelation, on just one verse, especially when that verse in the original Hebrew is somewhat obscure grammatically…”.

 

This teaching is quite straightforward. God did not give us the Hebrew Scriptures to confuse us. There are many clear and explicit teachings in the Hebrew Scriptures. Many of these teachings are repeated again and again. God has no problem making a point clear and emphasizing the point again and again. Dr. Brown is teaching us that a Biblical interpretation that assumes that God revealed a critical revelation in just one grammatically obscure verse that runs counter to a teaching that is expressed clearly and explicitly in many verses, would be illogical and faulty.

 

With this teaching, Dr. Brown has delivered a death blow to the Church’s 2000 year effort to establish a Scriptural basis for Jesus’ claims.

 

The entire theology of Christianity stands on the tenuous claim that God hung major Torah revising revelation on solitary verses where the Hebrew is grammatically obscure.

 

The Scriptures explicitly state that the forgiveness of sin is achieved through sincere repentance. This teaching is repeated many times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in a clear and unambiguous manner (Deuteronomy 30:1‑10, Ezekiel 18:21‑23,27,28,31,32, 33:11,14‑16,19, Isaiah 1:16‑18, 55:7, Hosea 14:2‑10, Jonah 3:10, Micah 6:7,8, Psalm 51:19)[9]. These passages directly address the issue of forgiveness from sin, yet they make no mention of a blood offering. Some of these passages[10] actually preclude the requirement of a blood offering as a necessary component in the process of forgiveness from sin. Yet on the basis of the misinterpretation of one solitary verse (Leviticus 17:11)[11] from a passage that does not directly address the issue of forgiveness from sin at all, Christianity teaches that repentance cannot achieve atonement without a blood offering!

 

Throughout the Scriptures, we find that both tribal and royal lineage proceed through the paternal line. The phrase “to the house of their fathers” is repeated over 20 times in the first four chapters of the Book of Numbers alone. Yet Christianity teaches that the Davidic Messiah of the tribe of Judah will NOT be a descendant of David and Judah from his father’s side. This, on the basis of one solitary mistranslated verse that is wrenched out of its Scriptural and historical context (Isaiah 7:14)!

 

Many passages in Scripture are devoted to describing the Messianic era. These passages provide us with a clear and unambiguous portrait of those glorious times (Numbers 24:14‑19, Deuteronomy 4:30, 30:1‑10, 32:43, Jeremiah 3:14‑18, 16:14,15,19, 23:3‑8, 30:3,7‑11,16‑25, 31:1‑39, 32:37‑44, 33:6‑26, 46:27,28, 50:4,5,19,20, Ezekiel 11:17‑20, 20:40‑44, 28:25‑26, 34:9‑16,22‑31, 36:6‑15,22‑38, 37:1‑28, 38:1‑48:35, Isaiah 1:26,27, 2:1‑4, 4:2‑6, 10:33‑12:6, 24:21‑25:9, 30:26, 34:1‑35:10, 40:1‑11, 41:8‑20, 43:1‑10, 44:1‑5 49:8‑26, 51:11,22‑52:12, 54:1‑55:5, 56:7, 60:1‑63:9, 65:17‑25, 66:10‑24, Hosea 2:1‑3,16‑25, Joel 3:1‑4:21, Amos 9:11‑15, Obadiah 1:17‑21, Micah 4:1‑7, 5:1‑13, 7:8‑20, Zephaniah 3:9‑20, Zechariah 2:9, 8:1‑8, 14:3‑21, Malachi 3:4,16‑24, Psalm 51:20,21, 69:36,37, 98:1‑3, 102:14‑23, 126:1‑6, Daniel 2:44, 7:18,22,27, 12:2,3). Throughout these lengthy Scriptural depictions, we find not a word about a second coming of the Messiah. Christianity builds the theological edifice of a second coming on the basis of the misinterpretation of one solitary verse (Daniel 7:13[12])!

 

This is not to mention the many Christian doctrines which do not have even one solitary, non-contextual, mistranslated verse to lean on at all. These include, but are not limited to, the idea that the sacrificial system is to be replaced, the teaching that our devotion ought to be directed to Jesus, the concept that all men are damned to hell for ever and ever because of Adam’s sin, the concept that a new election is established on the basis of devotion to an individual and the concept that devotion to an individual is a prerequisite for atonement, amongst many others.

 

According to Dr. Brown’s own teaching, Christianity has no valid Scriptural basis.

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 Critique | 1 Comment