Judge Not

Posted on June 23, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Christianity claims to be the only path to salvation before God. Many individual Christian denominations take this claim one step further with the assertion that this path leads exclusively through membership in their particular church.

This claim is not unique to Christianity. Many religions lay claim to exclusive possession of the way to eternal reward. What is different about Christianity is that its claim is refuted through its own accusation against Judaism. Christianity’s claim to exclusivity is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory – in a word: hypocritical.

You see, Christianity acknowledges that before the advent of Jesus, the Jewish people enjoyed a unique relationship with God. Judaism does not claim that the path to God is limited to membership in the Jewish community. According to Judaism, any human being who acknowledges his or her debt to the Creator, and lives a life in line with the conscience that God planted into…

View original post 1,210 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Claiming Originality – Excerpt from Supplement

Posted on June 23, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Claiming Originality – Excerpt from Supplement

IV. 25. Page 216

In this section Brown takes a page out of Jesus’ book, and besmirches Judaism and her teachers.

When Jesus presented his moral teachings to his audience, it was not enough for him to encourage his followers to aim for a higher moral standard. It was important for him to claim that his teaching was original, and that the teachers who preceded him failed to understand some basic moral insights. By doing so, Matthew’s Jesus set the stage for the subsequent teaching of John’s Jesus that the Jews are children of the devil. Eventually, the European people came to believe that the Jewish people are so intimately connected with evil that they fail to appreciate some of the most basic principles of morality.

Brown too is not satisfied to present Jesus’ moral teachings. He finds the need to paint a fictitious portrait of Judaism as a legalistic belief system with only the dimmest understanding of morality.

Brown points to Jesus teaching against anger as a “deeper” understanding of the Law. The fact is that Jesus taught the Jewish people nothing that they did not already know. The rabbis taught against anger, making sure to point to the Scriptural source for their teaching (b. Nedarim 22b, based on Ecclesiastes 7:9).

Brown points to Jesus’ teaching against lustful thoughts as another example of an “exclusive” moral insight of Jesus. The Rabbis also taught against lustful thoughts, making sure to attribute the moral insight to Scripture (b. Eruvin 18b, based on Proverbs 11:21, see also Job 31:1).

Jesus’ teaching “let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”, is also cited by Brown as an example of Jesus’ moral superiority over the teachers of Rabbinic Judaism. The problem with Brown’s assertion is that the Talmud records precisely the same teaching, again pointing to a Scriptural source for this concept (b. Bava Metzia 49a, based on Leviticus 19:36, see also Leviticus 19:11, Proverbs 12:22).

The famous teaching of “turning the other cheek”, which Brown interprets as “not seeking retaliation”, is explicitly stated in the Torah – Leviticus 19:18.

The philosophy of “loving your enemies”, is also echoed in Rabbinic literature (b. Bava Metzia 32b, based on Exodus 23:5, see also Leviticus 19:17).

Brown speaks of Jesus’ advice to perform acts of righteousness in secret as another example of Jesus’ “original” insights. Again, this is a well known Rabbinic teaching based on Scripture (b. Succah 49b, based on Micah 6:8).

The teaching “forgive others so that we may be forgiven” is also not a “Jesus original” as Brown seems to assume. The Talmud presents the same teaching (b. Rosh Hashana 17a, based on Micah 7:18).

Jesus’ warning not to store up treasures on earth is found in the Talmud as well (b. Bava Batra 11a, with various Scriptural quotations including Isaiah 3:10).

The warnings against greed and love of money are also found in the Rabbinic writings (Avot 4:21, Kohelet Raba 1), and these concepts are found in the books of Scripture especially in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (e.g. Proverbs 15:27, Ecclesiastes 2:11).

The concept of trusting on our Father’s goodness is a prevalent theme in both the Rabbinic writings and in the Jewish Scriptures (e.g. Jeremiah 17:7, Psalm 55:23).

Jesus’ teaching against being judgmental, and his encouragement for self-examination are also paralleled in the Rabbinic sources (b. Bava Kama 93a, Bava Batra 60b based on Zephaniah 2:1).

(At this point, one might ask: How did Jesus provide an example for self-examination? By teaching that he could do no wrong, his followers could not fathom why he died such an ignominious death. In sharp contrast to Jesus, when two of the Pharisee leaders were being executed by the Romans they provided an incredible example for self-examination. One said to the other: “in an instant you will be together with the righteous, why then do you cry?” The response was: “I am crying because we are dying like those who have murdered and violated the Sabbath.” The former comforted his companion: “perhaps you were eating or sleeping and a woman came to ask you a question concerning the Law and your students turned her away. Does not the verse say “if you oppress them (the widow and the orphan) I will smite you by the sword?” It is these people who Jesus slandered when he taught the world that the Pharisees ignore the commandment of caring for the widow and the orphan (Matthew 23:14).)

Brown concludes that traditional Jews might find these concepts: “profound but vague”. Brown warns that traditional Jews will need “some level of reorientation” to implement these moral teachings (page 217). I find this simply amazing. Brown seems to be under the impression that no traditional Jew ever heard of these concepts. Just to get an idea as to how skewed Brown’s view of reality actually is, please consider the following. A Messianic teacher decided to try to implement Jesus’ moral teachings. He created a website that focuses on the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus and he elaborates and expands on each one. He draws most of his sources from rabbinic literature! (Here is the link to his site – http://rivertonmussar.org/)

Brown seems to be locked into an “either or” world view. Either one follows a religious legal code, or one follows a moral code. The Scriptures teach and the respective histories of the Church and the Synagogue confirm that it is “both or neither”.

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 | 524 Comments

Fear, Guilt and Psalm 131:2

Posted on June 22, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Fear, Guilt and Psalm 131:2

Fear can be a crippling emotion. Under the influence of fear people become paralyzed and cannot follow the directives of their brains. Even worse is when the brain itself fails to think logically because it is overwhelmed by the power of fear.

Guilt can also be a crippling emotion. A misplaced sense of guilt can discourage a person from doing what ought to be done. Even worse is when the sense of guilt warps our thinking process and distorts our view of reality.

The masters of persuasion are aware of the power of these emotions and they attempt to harness the forces of fear and guilt in their campaign for possession of the hearts of men.

“Do you want to dwell in the fiery darkness of hell for all eternity?”

 

“Don’t you realize how evil you are with all of your sins? How can…

View original post 919 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Song of the Well

Posted on June 18, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

The Song of the Well

In the book of Numbers (21:17-20) we are told that Israel sang a song about the well that accompanied them in the desert. The Talmud teaches that this song was part of a tri-weekly cycle of songs that were recited in the Temple over the afternoon offering on the Sabbath. The other two songs in this series were two paragraphs from the song recorded in the book of Exodus (15:1-21).

 

We need to understand the significance of this song, and how it stands in line with the song that Israel sang when they were saved from Pharaoh and his army.

 

We are inspired to sing when we see the harmony that arises from a complete picture. Until Israel saw the Egyptians dead at the edge of the sea, the picture of redemption from Egypt was not complete. But when they saw that the Egyptians will never threaten them again, they understood how all of the events were brought together by God in perfect harmony to lead to this moment of complete redemption. And this view of the harmonious whole is the subject of the Song of the Sea.

 

At the end of forty years of wandering in the desert, Israel looked back at their survival in a place that does not support life. Civilization is established upon rivers and oceans (Psalm 24:2). When we describe a city in a Jewish legal document we speak of the source of water upon which it is based. A desert is not a place for human habitation. But God gave Israel its own source of water upon which it could establish its life, a source that is not tied down to any place. This source of water is given to them as a gift from God. They realized that with this well, God placed Israel’s survival on a separate plane from that of other nations. Israel is a nation apart, a nation that is not tied down to the material world.

 

Our Sages explain that the Song of the Well is also a song about God’s holy Law. The Law of God is Israel’s life force. With the Torah in their hearts, Israel could survive anywhere. The civilization of Israel is established on the banks of the Torah. And without the Torah, we lose our identity as a nation and we cannot survive.

 

This is the harmonious picture that Israel saw at the end of the forty years of wandering in the desert. They saw how God had given them a source of life that is tied to nothing but to their loyalty to Him. And they realized that this is the wondrous story of Israel’s future as well.

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

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

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

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Posted in Basic, Judaism, Scripture | 1 Comment

Who replaced the sacrifices? – Excerpt from Contra Brown

Posted on June 15, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Who replaced the sacrifices?

 

Brown attempts to present the authors of the Talmud as individuals who have no regard for the message of scripture. After quoting 2Chronicles 7:14, Brown states:

 

“Yet this is the very verse quoted in the Talmud to prove that when the Temple was NOT standing, prayer repentance and charity replaced sacrifice. Isn’t this amazing? A verse based on the centrality of the Temple sacrifices is used to prove that those very sacrifices were replaced.”  (AJO Vol. 2 Page 98)

 

Let us examine the relevant quote from the Talmud in context (Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 2:1). The Rabbis are not discussing a replacement for the offerings. The Rabbis are also not talking about the specific situation of a destroyed Temple. The Rabbis are making a general statement about the power of prayer, repentance and charity without limiting them to a specific time-frame. In fact this same passage is repeated in the Talmud in order to help us understand how Hezekiah averted the penalty of death that was decreed against him. This event took place while the first Temple still stood. It is obvious that the Rabbis recognized the effectiveness of prayer, repentance and charity to expiate sin while the Temple stood. Brown’s portrayal of the Talmud as if it had quoted the verse in Chronicles to support a doctrine that seeks the replacement of the sacrifices after the Temple was destroyed – is a blatant misrepresentation.

 

The Talmud recognizes the scriptural truth that it is only repentance which can render a person righteous before God. This truth is not affected with the presence of the Temple or with its absence. While the Temple is standing and the possibility to offer sacrifices is available, God declares; “The sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination before the Lord” (Proverbs 15:8, 21:27). One must change his standing before God from “wicked” to “righteous” before approaching God with an offering. This is done through repentance – a commitment to turn back to God and to obey His word (Deuteronomy 30:2). The offering was an outward expression of the penitent heart, and is only meaningful in the context of repentance and obedience. Through the act of bringing an offering in compliance with God’s explicit command, the sinner gives expression to his sincere submission to the authority of God. If the opportunity to bring the offering is available, and the sinner fails to bring the offering, this failure stands as an expression of rebellion against God’s sovereignty. Now that the Temple lies in ruins, and the opportunity to bring the offerings is not available, the failure to bring the appropriate offerings does not stand in the way of our repentance. As long as the sincere desire to comply with God’s command is present in our hearts, our inaction is not held against us.

 

Since the destruction of the Temple, the loyal Jew constantly declared his yearning to bring the sacrifices in obedience to God’s express directive. This yearning is expressed in the national prayers, and in the study of Talmud. The authors of the Talmud devoted several hundred pages of discussion in relation to the laws of the sacrifices. It is through this discussion that the spirit of these laws is preserved in the heart of Eternal Israel (Isaiah 51:7). When the Temple returns, in fulfillment of God’s promise, the loyal Jew will not miss a beat in bringing the sacrificial system back to life. The Jew’s longing and desire to obey every last word of God’s holy law, is the tool through which God kept the law alive for the last generation. The accusation that charges the authors of the Talmud with the discarding and doing away with the sacrificial system is the height of absurdity. When this accusation issues forth from a belief system that actually does preach a discarding and doing away with the scriptural sacrifices, it is the height of hypocrisy.

 

Although we no longer have the physical Temple, God promised us that for the duration of our exile, He will be our Temple (Ezekiel 11:16). In light of this prophecy, the leaders of the Jewish people sought parallels to the Temple service in the activities which are available to us in our exiled state. They found these parallels in prayer (Proverbs 15:8), in charity and acts of kindness (Micha 6:8, Proverbs 16:6), and in the broken heart of the sinner (Psalm 51:19). The Rabbis recognized that God considers these activities as parallels to the Temple offerings, and that this is the service that God desires in our Temple in exile. As it was with the sacrifices, the Rabbis recognized that these activities were only meaningful as expressions of a repentant heart.

 

The Rabbis did not teach that these activities only became effective with the destruction of the Temple. The Talmud describes how the nation would react when they were stricken with a drought. In recognition that the calamity had come upon them as a result of their sins, they would proclaim a public fast. The leaders would remind the people that it was not the fasting of the Ninevites that brought God to rescind the decree of destruction. The prophet states that God saw their deeds that they had repented from their evil ways, and it was this repentance that turned the tide in their favor (Jonah 3:10). The fasting only served as a means to encourage and to give expression to sincere repentance, and outside of the context of repentance, the fast is meaningless. The procedure of the public fast and the call to repentance was followed while the Temple stood, as well as after the destruction. The Talmud makes no mention of a sacrifice in this situation. Since there was no commandment to bring a sacrifice in this situation, no sacrifice was necessary. It is clear that the authors of the Talmud believed that prayer and repentance effectively atoned for sin even while the Temple was standing.

 

The Rabbis did not proclaim that prayer, repentance and charity had replaced the Temple offerings and rendered them redundant. On the contrary, our leaders saw in these activities, the path that God had ordained so that we can repair our relationship with God, and merit the return of the Temple together with the sacrificial offerings. May it happen speedily in our days.

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 Atonement | 2 Comments

Not by your Righteousness

Posted on June 12, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Not by your Righteousness

One of the central teachings of Protestant Christianity is that no man is justified through their own good deeds (Romans 3:20). At first glance it would seem that this sentiment expressed by Paul is an echo of Elihu’s declaration in the book of Job (35:7): “If you were righteous, what have you given Him, or what has He taken from your hand?” However, when we get beyond the superficial similarity, it becomes obvious that these two concepts are actually polar opposites.

Elihu is giving expression to the central theme of the Jewish Scriptures: that God alone is the absolute sovereign. As beings that were created by God, who are constantly sustained by God and who can only operate in the arena provided by God, we can never give to God that which does not already belong to Him. If a man were to live a perfectly…

View original post 233 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Why a Jew cannot accept Jesus – excerpt from Contra Brown

Posted on June 11, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Why a Jew cannot accept Jesus

Christians can agree that there was an authentic God-given teaching available before Jesus was born. What was that teaching? Both Jews and Christians admit that the Jewish scriptures were a significant part of that teaching. Let us focus on the Jewish scriptures. We must cast our mind back to the time before Jesus was born. We must ask ourselves how a Jew would have read the scriptures before the advent of Christianity. What was the total world-view that the Jewish scriptures imparted to the Jewish people? What would have been the perspective of the Jew who accepted the totality of the Jewish scriptures concerning the major theological issues that stand between Judaism and Christianity?

 

The Jewish scriptures provide the Jewish people with clear and direct guidance on the major issues that separate Judaism from Christianity. For the purpose of illustration we will focus on the issues of idolatry, atonement and the Messianic era.

 

In order to establish His relationship with the Jewish people God introduced Himself to the nation as a whole with the words “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2). This revelation gave the people to understand that there is no power aside from God (Deuteronomy 4:35). This revelation was God’s way of teaching us whom to worship, and through the process of elimination – who we cannot worship. If the entity in question was not present at Sinai, then it does not deserve our devotion (Exodus 20:19, Deuteronomy 4:15). Scripture consistently refers to idols as “gods that neither you nor your fathers have known” (Deuteronomy 11:28, 13:3,7,14, 28:65, 29:25, 32:17, Jeremiah 7:9, 19:4) – or “that which I have not commanded” (Deuteronomy 17:3). The clear message of scripture precludes worship of an entity that was not revealed to us at Sinai. It is on this basis that the Jewish people cannot accept a teaching which deifies a human being.

 

On the issue of atonement, the message of scripture rings loud and clear. Ezekiel 33:10 gives expression to the feeling of hopelessness that overtakes the sinner – “our sins and transgressions are upon us, and we melt away in them, how then shall we live?” The next verse gives us God’s response – “Tell them – as I live says the Lord I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn away from his sins and live”. The passage goes on to assure the penitent sinner “none of the sins that he committed will be remembered against him” (Ezekiel 33:16). Here the scriptures directly address the feelings of guilt and hopelessness that overwhelm the sinner. God’s answer is repentance. The primary and direct purpose of this passage is to address the issue of getting out of the trap of sin and achieving God’s forgiveness. The teaching of scripture on this issue is – repentance. There are quite a number of passages in scripture which directly address the question of the sinner’s hope and the answer is always repentance. (Deuteronomy 4:29,30; 30:1-3, – addressing the nation as a collective unit, Isaiah 1:16,17, 55:7, Ezekiel 18:21,22,23, Micah 6:6-8 and the entirety of the book of Jonah all give us clear and direct guidance on the issue of atonement. See also Jeremiah 36:3, Zechariah 1:3, and Job 22:23.) It is on the basis of God’s explicit word that the Jewish people reject the theology which denies the efficacy of repentance.

 

On the issue of the Messiah, scripture is also clear and unambiguous. Contrary to Dr. Brown and Lee Strobel’s assertions that “Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such” or “scholars must pore over the context of various passages to determine which ones deal with the coming of the Messiah” – there are quite a number of passages in Jewish scripture which are open and unequivocally direct in their description of the Messianic era. The future hope for God’s nation is amply described by Moses (Deuteronomy 30:1-10), by Isaiah (2:1-4, 11:1 – 12:6, 60:1 – 63:6, 66:12 – 24), by Jeremiah (23:4 -8, 30:1 – 31:39, 33:4 -16), Ezekiel (34:23 – 30, 36:1 – 38, 37:15 – 28), Hosea (2:18 – 22), Joel (3:1 – 4:21), Obadiah (1:15 – 21), Micah(4:1 – 4), Zephaniah (3:8 – 20), Zechariah (14:1 – 21), and Daniel (7:27). One does not need to be a scholar to recognize that these passages are God’s promise for Israel’s glorious future. God had granted the Jewish people a clear and unambiguous portrait of the Messianic era – a portrait that was all put into writing long before Jesus’ grandparents saw the light of day. Loyalty to God’s word demands that the Jewish people reject the doctrine which contradicts what God had taught them.

 

The Christian missionaries will be quick to point out that there are certain passages in scripture which seem to support their contentions. We will shortly demonstrate how those passages do not in fact support the Christian position, and in most cases turn out to be the strongest refutations to Christianity. But it is not necessary to actually refute the missionary arguments in order to recognize their irrelevance. The passages that support the Jewish position tower above the missionary proof-texts in four different ways.

 

a) Comprehensive: The scriptural passages that we have quoted in support of the Jewish position are comprehensive. They provide a complete and thorough teaching on the issue in question. The missionary quotations never give a full teaching on the issue in question. There is no verse in scripture which can be twisted to read as a commandment to worship a human incarnation of the divine. There is not one passage in the Jewish scriptures which teaches that atonement is achieved through belief in the Messiah. Neither does scripture tell us that the Messiah offers eternal salvation for those who accept his claims. The best the missionary can do is to find a passage which seems to support a fragment or a detail of the Christian doctrine. These fragments pale into insignificance when they are contrasted with the broad and comprehensive sweep of the general message of scripture.

 

b) Clear: The scriptural passages that we have quoted in support of the Jewish position are clear and unambiguous. There is no question as to what these passages mean. The passages that the missionaries quote in support of Christian doctrine are generally vague and ambiguous. In many cases, even Christian scholars question the validity of the missionary interpretations. There is no way that these questionable quotations can challenge the open and explicit message of scripture.

 

c) Consistent: The doctrines of Judaism stand on the basis of a scriptural message that is emphatically repeated in a consistent manner. Many of the doctrines of Christianity stand on the tenuous interpretation of a single verse. It is irresponsible to establish doctrine on the basis of these anomalous passages. Sober biblical scholarship demands that these passages be interpreted in light of the consistent message of the totality of scripture.

 

d) Direct: The scriptural passages that we have quoted in support of the Jewish position are direct. The primary purpose of these passages is to present a teaching on the doctrine in question. Deuteronomy 4:9-20 was written with the express purpose of teaching us who we are to worship. Ezekiel 33:10-20 directly address the question as to how we can achieve forgiveness for our sins. The scriptural passages quoted by the missionary, were not written for the direct purpose of teaching the Christian doctrine, this, even according to the missionary interpretation. Each of these passages has a primary and direct message which has nothing to do with Christianity. The broad sweep of the Jewish scriptures provided the Jew with a clear and complete theology. The theology that emerges from the Jewish scriptures does not allow the Jew to accept Christianity. As one former missionary (whose path to the God of Israel went through the pages of the Jewish scripture) put it – the Bible is the most powerful counter-missionary book ever published.

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 | 6 Comments

A Memo from the Church in the Year 1984 – by Jim

Posted on June 8, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

A Memo from the Church in the Year 1984

 

Brothers of the Ministry of Information, our Big Brother is concerned about the ongoing negative reaction of the Jewish community to the News.  It is imperative that we give them the New History, so that they will no longer offer resistance to our policies.  Please follow the guidelines outlined here, which will bring them into the fold.

 

Many of you have been emphasizing love in your broadcasts.  You are to be commended.  The Love of Big Brother envelops us all.  However, this is not enough!  As the Ministry of Information, we must inform the Jew that never has there been anything but love between our people and theirs.  New History will show that the wars of the past, what they call “massacres,” were waged only against our common enemy.  We have never hated the Jew!

 

Our enemies, to drive a wedge between us, have found old pirated footage of Big Brother.  These speeches of his seem to indicate a deep pathological antipathy to the Jew.  You should know, Brothers, that these words have all been carefully cut by our enemies to deceive the Jews and confuse them.  As members of the Ministry, it is your job to properly contextualize his speeches.  It should be obvious that when he called them the “children of Satan” he did not mean all of them, only those that were children of Satan.  Unfortunately, the Jews lack discernment, so we must inform them what a child could perceive.

 

The same can be said of any other of his speeches that turn up.  Those of you who work in the archives will know that not all of his speeches emphasized love.  He was known to call members of the now-defunct Jewish leadership “vipers”.  One of the early Ministry members referred to their worship centers as “synagogues of Satan”.  These hard words are of course the true essence of love, but some of the Jews have been avoiding the Ministry of Information, and they have not gotten their minds quite right.

 

Deflect such concerns by illustrating Jewish guilt.  Show them our archival footage of Jews trying to entrap Big Brother.  Show them the maddened crowds, foaming at the mouth, crying out for his execution.  Show how they bribed one of the Ministry of the Treasury to betray Big Brother.  They will understand why Big Brother called them vipers and such.  Surely they will be assuaged when they see they are the source of his hard words.

 

Your broadcasts must emphasize the eternal love of Big Brother for the Jew, and of course all of those within our organization.  It has never been anything but love.  If footage comes up wherein he calls the Jews “children of the devil” with murder in their heart like their father, you must emphasize his Jewishness.  Once they see that he is Jewish, they will understand that he was not talking about all Jews, only the murderous ones.

 

To aid you in this endeavor, we have Gumped the footage.  Do not let any unfamiliar scenes confuse you.  The yiddishisms dubbed in and the changing of Jesus’ name do not alter the meaning.  Soon, you will come to see that the New Footage is what the Footage always was.  All footage is New Footage.

 

Digital technology has helped us greatly in this project.  We have been able to highlight the yarmulke on his head that was always there, but was invisible to the eye because of the poor quality of the old film.  Do not be surprised to find Big Brother eating a bagel in scenes you do not recall him noshing in previously.  Big Brother is Jewish; of course he ate bagels!  He also said, “Oy!” more than you may recall.  This is nothing more than your mind focusing on details that it once missed.  Because you are emphasizing the message to the Jew, you are more aware of his Jewishness than you were previously.  Do not be alarmed.

 

Do not be alarmed when you hear his new name, either.  It is not new.  We have only cleared up the audio on the footage.  Still, among yourselves, feel free to use either name.  When presenting New History to the Jew, however, only use his original name, the one found in the cleaned up footage.

 

Likewise, emphasize his status as a rabbi.  Some may have a false memory of rabbis being abused by the Ministry of Truth.  This false memory is a lie spread by the enemy.  Big Brother was a rabbi, and so none of us in the Government could ever have touched them.  We have only loved them eternally, as Big Brother does.  However, avoid questions regarding his ordination (they may use the word ‘semicha’).  Emphasize rather his deep devotion to their archives.

 

You may point out that he is mentioned in their archives.  In fact, their whole history and legal structure is about him.  But do not spend too much time on this.  Early members of the Ministry of Information already showed them footage of their Prophets, giving speeches that clearly referred to Big Brother.  These snippets were unable to reach their hard hearts.  They will only be softened by New History and the eternal love of Big Brother.  Some of them have kept footage of their archives and may refer back to their own copies.  Emphasize the superior of our digital footage, which has cleaned up their old film copies, restoring dialogue previously too garbled to hear.  If they do not find the original garbled, move on.

 

Some will question Big Brother’s Jewishness, not so much his genetic code, but the idea of Big Brother in general.  They will point to foreign gods having children, demigods who walked among men.  Such an idea they will find repugnant to Judaism.  Refer back to the archival footage to illustrate just how Jewish the idea of Big Brother is.  Possible comparisons: he was like the ark that saved the whole world.  You can point out he had a hole in his side, like the ark did.  He was like the Pesach lamb.  (Pesach is their word for “Passover.”  If you cannot remember the word, do not worry.  In a generation or two, they will forget their ancient terminology.)  It may be a good idea to illustrate his lambness, by parading a seared lamb on a vertical skewer.  He can also be compared to the Day of Atonement sacrifice (try not to say “goat”) that also takes away the sin of the world.

 

All the while, remind them that he was not only a Jew as an idea, but genetically.  This will smooth over any objections, until their minds accept the New Truth.  Study “Fiddler on the Roof” so that you can understand their language and culture as he did.  Point out that his first disciples were fishermen.  They may be surprised to know that he created the first gefilte fish recipe.  As you all know, Big Brother also had a great sense of humor, just like Jerry Seinfeld.  How much more Jewish could he be?

 

As the Jew learns the New History, he will forget about the intervening years as portrayed by the enemy.  The enemy has blamed us for the oppression of the Jews.  As we know, that could not be farther from the truth.  Those in the Government who used archival footage of Big Brother to support their hatred had nothing to do with us.  And we never liked them anyway.

 

Do not be concerned if this leaves what some historians are calling a “historical vacuum”.  We are not to worry if our History begins at Big Brother, runs for forty years, is interrupted for 2,000 and picks up again forty years ago.  Those intervening 2,000 years are irrelevant.  Historians will fill in the details when Big Brother finds it necessary.  For now, avoid the issue of those 2,000 years.  Appeal to the eternal love of Big Brother and the Government today.

 

Above all, speak to them like they are children.  The Jew is slow to understand.  This must surely be a genetic mental disorder.  Impatience will drive them away.  We must talk down to them to lift them up.  Soon, this issue will no longer exist.  Once the Jew views our cleaned up footage, he will unite with us.  In thirty years, the Jews will have forgotten they were Jewish at all, just as happened to all the Jews before them that joined our most worthy enterprise.

 

Management

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 | 20 Comments

The Guilt of Books

Posted on June 1, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

The Guilt of Books

 

Books don’t commit crimes, people do. If we are going to discuss the guilt or innocence of a given book, we need to first define and delineate what the discussion is going to be about.

 

There is no discussion about the commitment of the crime. It happened and it is still happening. People are still using the canards of the Christian Scriptures to delegitimize, dehumanize and to create an unjust negative image of the Jewish people and their beliefs. This is not open to discussion, this is a fact of history and it is a fact of life.

 

The question that is being discussed is the question of the intent of the authors of the Christian Scriptures. If the authors of the Christian Scriptures had no malicious intent then we cannot rightly accuse them of criminal activity. Perhaps they were negligent, perhaps they were foolishly naïve, but in order to determine that they were participants in the crimes of Christian Europe we will need to demonstrate malicious intent.

 

There are a few concepts that need to be set aside before this discussion can take on any meaning. For those who are convinced that the origin of the Christian Scripture is divine, then this discussion can have no meaning. For those people, and for many centuries this was the outlook of Christian Europe, virtue and sin is defined according to the Christian Scriptures. So if the Christian Scriptures dehumanize the Jew, then it is virtuous to dehumanize the Jew and it is sinful to consider the Jew human. If this is the outlook then there can be no discussion about the guilt of the Christian Scriptures.

 

Fortunately, we live in an age where most people recognize that if the Christian Scripture had an intentional hand in the crimes committed by Christian Europe toward the Jewish people, then that book cannot be divine. This then is the basis for our discussion.

 

Another concept that needs to be defined if not set aside is the idea of seeing a book as an entity that stands alone. Until the Protestant Reformation, no one saw the books of the Christian Scriptures as the sole authority on Christianity. It was understood and accepted that the attitudes and teachings passed on by the body of believers in Jesus were the heart and soul of Christianity. The books of the Christian Scriptures were part and parcel of the total outlook, but no one dreamed of seeing them as an entity that stands apart from the community that birthed them.

 

With the rise of the Reformation, the theoretical concept that became popular was that it is only what is written in the book that defines Christianity and no other body is authorized to define Christianity. I say that this concept is theoretical simply because it is not practiced by any denomination of Protestant Christianity. Every denomination of Protestantism accepts beliefs and attitudes from the community that preceded it, at least as they relate to the makeup of the Christian Scriptures.

 

This theory is relevant to our discussion because if Scripture alone is authorized to define Christianity then whoever it is that we are talking to can easily say that his or her interpretation of Scripture is the only accurate interpretation and therefore all of our findings are meaningless. This argument makes it that much more difficult to demonstrate the guilt of the Christian Scriptures because we now need to demonstrate the guilt of the book according to the interpretation of the individual we are addressing.

 

The fact is that the Christian Scriptures are so guilty, that even with our hands tied behind our back we can still demonstrate the guilt of this book.

 

One more concept needs to be clarified before we begin. A book is not a product of an individual it is a product of a community. Yes, individuals write books, but without the community the books would disappear into oblivion. If the community does not find in the book something that speaks to its heart, or if the community finds the book distasteful, then the book will never be copied and the future generations will never know that it existed.

 

With all of these concepts in place we can now proceed to the trial. What is the accusation that we bring against the authors and the community that birthed the Christian Scriptures? We are not accusing them of directly instructing their posterity to commit the crimes of the Inquisition, the holocaust and the centuries of cruel persecution of the Jewish people. But we are accusing them of laying the groundwork for those crimes.

 

Before Christian Europe began persecuting the Jew, they first saw the Jew as an entity that stood apart from the rest of humanity. In the mind of the Christian, the Jew was guilty of heinous crimes against God and against humanity, the Jew had a different spiritual nature than other people and the Jewish rejection of Jesus was rooted in the inherently evil nature of the Jew. The Christian also believed that all of these evil qualities of the Jew were taught by the teachers of Judaism as if they were the highest virtues. The Inquisition, the pogroms and the holocaust would not have been possible if the European would not have first believed that the Jew and Judaism were children of the Devil.

 

There is no question that this description of the Jew and of Judaism is recorded in the Christian Scriptures. This is how generations of Christian teachers understood the words of the Christian Scriptures and this is how they taught it to those who would listen to them. As the horrors of the holocaust became clear, many Christians recoiled from this interpretation of the Christian Scriptures. The modern claim is that this was not the original intent of the authors when they wrote those words.

 

Another defense thrown up by those trying to cling to the righteousness of these books is that the Hebrew Scriptures also speak ill of the Jews. Christian Europe also used the writings of the Jewish prophets to dehumanize and to delegitimize the Jewish people.

 

At this point we need to introduce another accusation against the community of people who believe in Jesus. This community usurped the Jewish Scriptures and wrenched them out of their original context. It is only when the Jewish Scriptures are read in the unnatural context of Christianity that they can be misused to dehumanize the Jew. And here is where our story begins.

 

What community was it that produced the Christian Scriptures? Who were the enemies of this community and what challenges did they face? How did this community define themselves and the world around them?

 

The community that produced the Christian Scriptures was a community that saw belief in Jesus as the most important factor in defining a human being. They defined themselves according to that belief and they defined others according to their lack of belief in Jesus.

 

Belief in Jesus means believing in him as the Messiah predicted by the prophets of Judaism. Now the Jews, by and large, did not believe in Jesus. This created an obvious problem for the community of Jesus believers. And this community was strongly motivated to dehumanize the Jew and to claim that the natural instincts of the Jew are evil and that as children of darkness they cannot come to the “light.” Furthermore, this community was motivated to teach that the Jew cannot understand his own Bible. It is only the believer in Jesus whose eyes are “opened” to the truth of the Jewish Bible. But the Jew’s heart and eyes are closed to the truth.

 

These were the teachings of the early community of believers in Jesus concerning the Jew and this is reflected in the writings of that community, including the Christian Scriptures. The criticism of the Jew in the Christian Scripture was never read as an internal self-criticism of the community of Jesus believers. It is still not read in that sense, even by those who would disassociate the crimes of Christian Europe from this set of books. Until today, the negative words that the Christian Scriptures has for the Jew are read as an explanation for the Jewish rejection of Jesus.

 

The criticism of the Jewish people that is found in the Jewish Scriptures was also read by the Christian community as a criticism of their theological opponents. Even when the Church taught that the Christian had replaced the Jew in the covenantal relationship with God, still the Christian never read the censure of the Jewish prophets as a criticism of the Christian community. The Christian always read the criticism of the Jewish prophets as a declaration of the evil of those who stand on the other side of the divide; those who don’t believe in Jesus.

 

The true context of the Jewish scriptures is entirely different. The prophets themselves declare that the Jewish Scriptures were given to the Jewish people to the exclusion of any other entity (Psalm 147:19,20). The Jews have always read the censure of Isaiah and Jeremiah as internal self-criticism and they still read them that way. They never read these words as a description of their theological enemies.  To compare the criticism of the Jews found in the Jewish Scriptures with the caricature of Jews and Judaism found in the gospels is to compare good with evil. The one was always read by its target audience as self-criticism while the other was always read by its target audience as the dehumanization of their theological challengers.

 

But it didn’t have to be like this. The early community of believers in Jesus was faced with a challenge. The theological doctrines that they held most dear were rejected by the Jewish people and this rejection was not easily dismissed. After all, it was the Jewish people who were waiting for the Messiah so why did they reject the Messianic claims of Jesus? The community of believers in Jesus needed to formulate some type of response to this Jewish rejection. They needed to explain to themselves as well as to others why it is that the Jewish people could not agree that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies.

 

At this juncture, the followers of Jesus had several paths open to them. They could have simply ignored the Jewish people and their claims and remained silent (“turn the other cheek”). Or they could have restated their case for the Messiah-ship of Jesus with greater clarity, attempting to assess what it is that the Jewish people don’t understand about their claims (“do unto others as you would have done unto yourself”). If the followers of Jesus had chosen either of these paths then the history of the Jewish people would have been that much different. There would have been no holocaust, no Inquisition, and the life of millions of Jews would have been so much more peaceful.

 

But the community of Jesus believers took a different path. They took the path of hatred and slander. They came up with fantastic theories that delegitimize the Jew’s opinion and discount the arguments of the Jew before they can be heard. The Jesus centered community taught their followers that the God centered community loved lies and hated truth. That they enjoyed murder and their religion was legalistic, cruel, hypocritical and arrogant. As blind children of darkness and the devil, there is no reason to take the arguments of the Jew seriously. This then was the path chosen by the community of Jesus believers; the path of delegitimizing and hating their theological opponents.

 

Hatred of the Jew and Judaism remained a hallmark of the community of Jesus believers. The subsequent writings of that community are all laced with deep antagonism towards Jews and Judaism.

 

So this is the situation. We have a community that had a vested interest to delegitimize and dehumanize the Jew. This community produced a series of books that contain precisely this sentiment. And we are to assume that this is a wild coincidence? That the authors and editors of the book were not guided by the base hatred that saturated the hearts of the rest of the members of the community? If you look at the history of the community that produced this book, you cannot but conclude that this book reflects the petty hatred of that community.

 

So when John’s Jesus “explains” that the reason that people don’t believe in him is because they love darkness and/or because they are children of the devil, it is a reflection of the hatred that festered in the heart of the community that authored and edited the book of John. This is precisely what that community wanted to believe; that they are children of God and children of light while their theological opponents are incapable of loving the truth because they are inherently evil. This saved them the trouble of considering the arguments of their enemies.

 

When Paul teaches his audience that the Jews have a veil over their eyes when they read the Torah and that they are blinded from seeing the truth of Scripture, he was setting the Jew apart from the rest of mankind. With these arguments Paul and the editors of his writings avoided the inconvenience of seeing the Jew as a human who has the capability of discerning right from wrong.

 

When Matthew’s Jesus describes the Pharisees as a brood of vipers and as a people steeped in hypocrisy, he was teaching his community exactly what they wanted to hear; that the Jewish concept of virtue is precisely the opposite of true virtue and there is then no need to take the Jewish rejection of the claims of the Jesus centered community with any seriousness.

 

Perhaps you are still unconvinced. Perhaps you think that is a complete coincidence that the community that was so motivated to delegitimize the Jew produced a work of literature that does precisely that. You still want to cling to the belief that the Christian Scriptures say nothing negative about Jews who don’t believe in Jesus, and all of this negative talk refers to a very limited group of people or that it refers to all who don’t believe in Jesus without singling out the Jews in any way shape or form.

 

In case that is your belief, then I have a question for you. Why is it, that until today, people from the Jesus centered community find it difficult to acknowledge that the reason Jews cannot accept their claims for the Messiah-ship of Jesus is because they love God? Why is it so difficult for them to acknowledge that it is a loyalty to God and to His goodness that does not allow Jews to accept Jesus? Why can they not admit that they have yet to provide a convincing case for the Messiah-ship of Jesus to the Jew who loves God and who loves His word?

 

Is it perhaps because of the teachings of the book that they hold so sacred that prevents them from acknowledging this simple 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 History | 183 Comments

The Festival of weeks – Isaiah 41:8

Posted on May 27, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Festival of Weeks – Isaiah 41:8

 Love doesn’t calculate. Love does not hear the discouraging voices.  Love is innocent. Love yearns and it follows. But love does not ask: what will I gain? Could I really get there?

Scripture doesn’t throw around the term: “love” very lightly. In all of Scripture, Abraham is the only one that God describes as: “the one who loved me”. (It is said of Solomon: “and he loved the Lord” – 1 Kings 3:3, and David declares: “I love you Lord of my strength” – Psalm 18:2. Indeed, David’s love for God still inspires Israel today and Solomon wrote the ultimate love-song; Song of Songs, but Abraham still stands out with his love for God highlighted as a part of his very identity, and this from God, in the first person.)

Abraham did not know where his love would lead him to. Abraham did not know…

View original post 429 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment