Shallow Similarities, Deep Differences – by Annelise

Posted on February 9, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

Shallow Similarities, Deep Differences – by Annelise

In Proverbs 8 we hear a speech in the voice of Wisdom, who is portrayed as a desirable and life-bringing woman. Wisdom speaks here about how she was created before the universe; how creation was made through her, and the way she delights in its order and beauty. She is seen all through creation as the path of good things for those who choose her.

This character of Wisdom has frequent parallels in other ancient Jewish sources, besides Proverbs. These describe wisdom and, with a similar image, the ‘word of God’ as a tool through which He upholds and interacts with created beings. The people who developed this picture had a careful sense of respect for God, wanting their followers to know that although He holds creation close, and is known within it, He is not to be mistaken for a created thing. They portrayed His actions in the world as created things: a tool in His hand, a humble viceroy and delighting servant. In the Aramaic commentary translations, they even went so far as to describe God’s word as the tangible agent of His actions in the world, rather than saying directly that He did it. They didn’t want any blurring or confusion to enter people’s minds when it came to the relationship between visible creation and its invisible Creator, who can be known deeply by heart but not comprehended in the slightest by mind.

There is some conceptual link with the Greek philosophical idea of a logos, and it is clear that when the Christian scriptures (written in Greek) portray their messiah as the ‘logos of God’, they are drawing on these Jewish concepts of chochmah, wisdom (from the Hebrew wisdom writings) and memra, God’s word (from the Targums and rabbinic literature).

Christian missionaries to the Jewish community jump on this fact, saying that their concept of God’s ‘eternally begotten son’, the ‘image of the invisible God’ who is seen to be both ‘God’ and ‘with God’, is not foreign to Judaism at all but is a natural parallel to the chochmah and memra imagery. And yet the beliefs of those who portray multiple relationships ‘within God’ involve serious new developments on these themes.

We need only turn to a key moment in the establishment of Christian orthodoxy to illustrate the problem. One of the verses that the Church Fathers were pressed to interpret is Proverbs 8:22, where wisdom describes how she was created first. They particularly needed to address the Arian claim, which said that Jesus was not God but was still lord of the world as the first created being. To orthdox Christianity, this is a heresy as serious as idolatry. A number of Christian teachers taught in their commentaries on Proverbs 8:22 that Wisdom had always existed, eternally with God, but that this verse only described a kind of ‘second phase’: the ‘incarnation of Wisdom’ into the cosmos as the beginning of all things.

This interpretation is clearly a new addition to the earlier Jewish concept, and one not supported by the imagery that it was first taken from. The missionaries need to acknowledge that their claims of an authoritative Jewish parallel to Christian theology are simply empty and misrepresented. As well as hijacking an idea that seems at first to have deliberately avoided incarnational theology, especially in the Targums, these missionaries are actually speaking about something new; they reinvent traditional Jewish imagery to say something that the scriptures and the rabbis never said at all.

So often in their speech and prayers, Christians speak about God and then in the same breath they speak about Jesus as another reality. Is this the resonance of true scripture tugging at the seams of Christian theology?

We should let light shine from the lesson of the church commentators, who unconsciously acknowledged a good starting point. That is, every time we can relate to wisdom in any discrete, finite, or tangible sense, we are looking at the created servant described in Proverbs 8:22. Not someone to be worshiped, but a path for our hearts as we find God Himself. Never would a Torah-careful Jew pray to wisdom as its own entity; they would pray simply to God, who knows and holds our hearts along the path of His wisdom and His good ways.

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 Annelise | 8 Comments

Believe in His Prophets – 2Chronicles 20:20

Posted on February 8, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Believe in His Prophets – 2Chronicles 20:20

It is virtuous to believe in God’s prophets. It is not always easy to believe in the prophets. Sometimes the prophets were commissioned to deliver harsh words of rebuke. Messages that expose corruption, hypocrisy and that upset the apple-cart of spiritual complacency. People like to think that their understanding of spirituality is complete and refined and these same people like to judge themselves favorably according to their own spiritual standards. The prophets were sent to destroy the self-delusion of these people who were so self-satisfied.

Sometimes the prophets were sent by God to encourage the people to take a course of action that may seem completely illogical from a human perspective. The prophets often encouraged Israel to abandon fear and plans of self-defense and to place all of their trust in God. It was not easy to accept these messages that were delivered…

View original post 707 more words

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Correcting Some Misconceptions

Posted on February 8, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

Correcting Some Misconceptions

In the recent conversation with Brother Gilbert, some inaccurate statements were posted on this blog. For the sake of truth I do not want to leave those statements unchallenged.

Rabbi Yaakov Emden was quoted with some positive words about Christianity’s founders, Jesus and Paul. But this did not stop him from labeling Christianity as idolatry for Jews as well as for Gentiles.

Brother Gilbert insinuated that the negative characterization that the Christian Scriptures presents of the Pharisees holds true for the Shammai sect of Pharisees. This is untrue. No sect of Pharisees acted as did the Pharisees portrayed by the Christian Scriptures. Every written record bequeathed to us by history demonstrates that the Pharisees were the precise opposite of what the gospel writers would have us believe.

Brother Gilbert told us that the Church has repented for its crimes against the Jewish people. I would think that repentance for the vicious murder of myriads of innocents needs to go a bit farther than some apologetic words.( In this context, I recommend the book; A Moral Reckoning, by Daniel Goldhagen, which analyzes the attitude of the Catholic Church toward its own sins.)

Finally, Brother Gilbert alleged that when the Church burned people alive at the stake, that the Rabbinic community rejoiced because the victims of the Church were generally traitors to the Jewish faith.

This accusation has no basis in fact. The records that we have of the times demonstrate that the Rabbinic community yearned for the return of their brethren who had been forcibly converted. There is no record of any joy expressed by the Rabbinic community at the occasion of the murder of their brethren.

What history has bequeathed to us is a record of Catholic joy at the death of those who had been forced to convert to their faith of “love.” The auto da fe, where “heretics” were burned alive, were public spectacles designed for the entertainment of the Catholic faithful. For a Catholic priest to accuse Jews of rejoicing over the cruel deaths inflicted by the same Catholic Church is the height of hypocrisy.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2155-auto-da-fe

I invite Brother Gilbert to rejoin the conversation on this blog. I cannot guarantee that every last commenter will respect your feelings, but I think that I can say that the discussion, no matter how painful, will ultimately lead to greater clarity. And clarity is a great gift.

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 | 8 Comments

Rich Resonance – Psalm 119:54

Posted on February 1, 2015 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Rich Resonance – Psalm 119:54

Christians see the Jewish Scripture as a music sheet of an exquisite song. The point of the Christian song is Jesus but the harmony reverberates in the Christian’s ear from every page of the book.

Then the Christian meets a Jew. The Jew tells him that this book has nothing to do with Jesus. The Christian listens to the Jewish arguments about translation and context and is unmoved. In the mind of the Christian, the Jew is making a tragic mistake. The Jew is reading the music notes without realizing that this is music. The Jew seems to be looking at the notes as if they were a story about some stickmen climbing a ladder. How can you argue with someone about music when they are completely tone-deaf?

What the Christian fails to realize is that music is subjective. Those who composed the Jesus song…

View original post 222 more words

Posted in General | 1 Comment

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