Letter to a Missionary

Posted on July 9, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Shalom Michoel

Thanks for taking the time for this articulate and detailed response. Each additional bit of clarity brings us closer to the truth that we both seek. Thanks for the tone as well.

You have my best ear for quite a while now. Can I be so presumptuous as to ask you for your best ear?

I hope you will forgive me for arranging this letter according to topics and not as a point by point response.

1) Social Context

In response to my question “where does scripture address the issue of social context”, you pointed to the verses in Proverbs where it speaks of trusting in God and not in our own understanding, with the verse in Psalms where David beseeches God to open his eyes to the wonders of the Torah – I would add to these the verse in Proverbs 2:6 where it clearly states that it is God who gives wisdom, from His mouth knowledge and understanding. These last two verses (from Psalm 119 and Proverbs 2) are printed in the front flap of many gemoras as an introduction to Torah study. The prayer we say every morning before the Shema beseeches God in the most open terms to grant us the light of His holy torah. There is no question that any understanding anyone obtains of God’s word is a direct gift from God and should be recognized as such and should never be taken for granted. I think we could both agree on this issue.

The way I see it, is that studying God’s word includes three components 1) beseeching God for guidance, and constantly turning to Him in prayer that we do not stumble and that He should open our eyes to His truth and save us from any errors. 2) reading the word itself with all of the capabilities that God blessed us with (I would include in this aspect – listening to the teachers who were designated by God to teach His laws) 3) the social context from within which the word is being read. Every person reads the word from within his own social context – and thus we have different social contexts reading the same Bible and hearing different messages.

The way I read scripture, I see that God makes a big deal about the third component of studying His word. God forged a certain social context through the miracles of the exodus, the revelation at Sinai, and the miraculous 40 year journey through the desert. He designated the living social context of this nation to keep the memory of these events alive and real, through physical observances. It is the power of this living testimony that God uses to authenticate scripture to the later generations. It is through this social context that He preserved the words of Moses, it is through this living social context that He gave us the words of the prophets that followed Moses. It is to this social context that God addresses His word, and it is from this social context that God expects His word to be read.

I don’t see how a Christian reads scripture and sees that God addresses the third component of reading His word.

You tell me that you cannot give credence to the testimony of the living people who I understand are the only true bearers of God’s message. You give three basic reasons for your position a) this group have added on many things to scripture b) they contradict scripture at many points c) they reject that which you cannot question either scripturally or experientially.

Aside from the experience you mention in reason c), your reasons are basically that your understanding of scripture tells you to reject their testimony. (I am sure that when you speak of experience, you are speaking of experience that is fused with your understanding of scripture – still, the power of your argumentation lies in its perceived scriptural basis – you are aware that my understanding of scripture also has confirming experiences.)

You recognize that from my perspective, there are no contradictions to scripture. On the contrary, it is the position of Christianity which I see as standing in blatant violation of scripture.

I have in the past presented several lines of argumentation which counter your points. In this letter I will try to articulate a line of argumentation which I did not flesh out in previous communications.

Exodus 31:12-17. God designates the practical observance of the Sabbath as an eternal sign, for all generations, that it is God who sanctifies the children of Yisroel. The social context of which I am a part is the only one that is observing the Sabbath continuously since the time these words were spoken. I will try to describe to you how things seem from the standpoint of my social context. We understand that a sign for all generations, is something that will be readable in all generations (at least within the social context of the Jewish people loyal to God). We see in these verses that God looks with favor at our contemporary observance of Shabbos. We see in these verses that the sanctity we experience through our observance of Shabbos, is not a product of our imagination, it is not a power generated by the collective spiritual strength of a given group of people, nor is it something granted by a strange spirit. It is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who is sanctifying us. We see in these verse a promise from God to preserve the true spirit of Shabbos through the practical observance of the physical descendants of our patriarch Yisroel. We see in our observance, the miraculous fulfilment of this promise.

How do you read these verses?

You ask me how I read Jeremiah 5 or other verses in scripture which seem to indicate that the leaders of the Jewish people lost touch with the word of God. My response is as follows. I (try to) read any given part of scripture in the context of the entirety of scripture (something which I know you try to do as well), and in the context of the mind-set of the people through whom God gave us scripture. I realize that you have little respect for the social context within which I read scripture, so I will stick to scripture itself to explain the meaning of these verses. Scripture indicates that the Jewish people were observing the Shabbos, and worshiping God in the beginning of the second temple era. The leaders were still able to teach the people how to observe the law of Moses. This tells me that after all the years of idolatry that went on during the first temple era, the people still had a workable definition of the law. This tells me that all the criticisms of corruption uttered by the prophets, did not mean that the people no longer retained a workable definition of the law. They may have been personally corrupt (as most people read Jesus’ criticism in Matt. 23 – that he criticized their personal lives while recognizing their role in maintaining the definition of the law), or their corruption may have even affected their transmission of the law, but not to the degree that the nation no longer had a workable definition of the law.

To explain this from another angle; I see Jeremiah as someone from within the social context of living Judaism uttering God’s criticisms. Just as I read stinging criticisms of traditional Judaism or of the leadership of traditional Judaism, coming from within traditional Judaism (and there is quite a bit of this), differently than I would read it if it were coming from someone who is outside the context of traditional Judaism. When the criticism is coming from within that context, than the unspoken given is that no matter how corrupt we are, God still ensured that His holy law be preserved through our living social context. And God can be trusted to keep His word.

2) Do not add.

On the one hand, it is difficult for me to take this question seriously. The social context at whom this question is directed cherishes every one of God’s commandments, while the social context from whom this question is coming seems to disregard many of God’s commandments. The social context of Christianity seems to be following a most liberal understanding of “do not subtract”, yet they demand the most legalistic understanding to “do not add”. So you can perhaps understand why it is not easy for me to take this question seriously. But I know you Michoel, and I know your sincerity, and this knowledge doesn’t allow me to take this question lightly.

The social context which passed on scripture to me, and whose testimony authenticates scripture for me – taught me the workable definition to the laws of the torah. The definition of this particular law as taught by the social context of Judaism allows for new laws, as long as they are not put on an equal footing with the laws taught by God through Moses. Those who canonized the book of Esther (whose authority we both accept, although I still can’t figure out why you do) seem to have shared my understanding of this particular definition of the law. The book of Esther tells us that a new holiday was accepted by the Jewish people. This fits right in with our understanding of the definition of this law, it does not seem to fit with the legalistic interpretation of the law that you are demanding that I apply.

To word things differently, using the language of the social context of Christianity as I learned it from you. You spoke to me about Christians reading the scriptures and seeing a commandment in every line. The way I understand this is that these people sense the spiritual underpinnings of the material law and sense how these spiritual commandments can apply to their gentile lives. The Jewish people do the same thing, on many different levels. (One note of caution; we never see the material observance as a contradiction to the spiritual sense of the law, on the contrary, the true spiritual sense of the law can only be grasped when accompanied by practical obedience.) One of the levels we do this on is the national level. Looking at the Jewish people loyal to God, all of them who ever lived, as one body, we sense that some of us are more in tune with the spiritual soul of the law than others. We sense this amongst ourselves today, and we sense this even more strongly, when we focus on generations past. We sense that these people were in tune not only with the soul of the law, but also with the soul of the people, of the eternal body of the Jewish people. If they understood that in order to preserve the harmony between the soul of the law and the soul of the people certain enactments are necessary, then we understand that this is God’s will. Just as a Christian would trust his own personal sensitivity to spirituality to guide him in life so do we trust our national sensitivity to spirituality to guide us in life.

3) Atonement

The reason I brought up this subject in the first place was to illustrate why I believe that you misunderstood the Jewish position (there are more examples, I chose this one because I think it is the most obvious). In the course of our dialogue, you rebuked me for burying my head in the stand, and for taking such an obtuse stance towards scholars who hold to different opinions than myself. I recognize that your rebuke stems from a sincere care for my soul, so please recognize that the following response is not a knee-jerk reaction in an attempt to defend myself, but rather is a reciprocation to your sincerity.

In your book you presented a theory, backed by the scholarship of certain scholars, that the consistent position of the Talmud was that while the temple stood there is no other form of atonement without blood. In other words, you are claiming that if one were to read the Talmud in its present form, he would realize that the authors of the Talmud believed that while the temple stood there was no other valid form of atonement.

You are now presenting a different theory. The theory you are presenting in your most recent communication has it that while the temple stood – the rabbis who lived at that time accepted that only blood atoned – after the temple was destroyed they came up with new methods of atonement – and when they wrote the Talmud they made it appear as if these alternate methods were accepted while the temple stood as well.

These are two different theories. I happen to disagree with both of them, but concerning the first one, I can confidently state that those who invented it were either irresponsible or consciously dishonest. The Talmud clearly recognizes that there are other valid forms of atonement while the temple stood, and there are very few statements of the Talmud which could be understood to mean that the authors of the Talmud did not recognize other forms of atonement while the temple stood. Even if one did not know how to reconcile the seeming contradiction in the Talmud, it would still be irresponsible to label this theory “the consistent position of the Talmud”.

The few statements in the Talmud which could be read to support this theory are those from Avos d’rav Nassan 4:5, Brachos 55a, Menachos 97a, Chagiga 27a – which say that while the temple stood we had the offerings but now we have charity etc. You yourself quote similar statements concerning the concept of death of the righteous. But you recognize clearly that the rabbis understood that the death of the righteous atoned when the temple stood as well (or did the death of the Kohein Gadol only atone after the destruction of the temple?) So you could see how the statements like “then we had offerings now we have charity” do not mean that the rabbis believed that God changed His policies, but rather that while the temple stood, offerings were in the forefront, and after the offerings were taken away from us (because of our sins) those methods which were always in the background, are now in the forefront.

Now that you seem to be abandoning the theory “that the consistent position of the Talmud was that while the temple stood there was no atonement without blood” – and you seem to be moving to a theory where the Talmud is unconsciously covering up a change in theology, – it would seem useless to discuss the theory you abandoned any further. But I want to solidify my position, that anyone who equates the Talmud’s statement of “ain kapara ela bedam” with the Christian scripture’s statement of “there is no atonement without blood” has lost his credentials in my eyes. I do not care if he is Jewish or Christian – he is at best irresponsible.

Page 109 you quote Geza Vermes and Boruch Levine who quote the Talmud’s “ein kapara ela bedam” as an equivalent to Hebrews 9:22. The way you present the argument you state “But he has failed to note exactly why the rabbis concluded that atonement was found only in the shedding of a sacrificial animal’s blood and not in the process of laying one’s hand on the sacrifice or in waving it before the Lord. It was because the rabbis knew that “there is no atonement without blood”. In other words since it was an accepted fact that there was no atonement without blood (this stock phrase, “there is no atonement without blood,” found repeatedly in the Talmud is almost proverbial in nature)…” . The way I understand this argument is that these scholars concluded that there was a piece of Torah Shebal Peh which taught the rabbis that there is no atonement without blood.

I do not see how one can responsibly jump to such a conclusion. The Rabbis tell you exactly where they knew it from – it was from Leviticus 17:11 which plainly says that the part of the animal that is designated by God for the providing of atonement is its blood and not its head (where the hands are laid) and not its chest and leg (which are waved before the Lord). The fact is that the rabbis of the Talmud had no problem associating atonement with all types of procedures (including the offering of incense – your comments on page 118 notwithstanding, the wearing of the priestly clothes, the giving of charity, the day of Yom hakippurim even without its offerings (this while the temple stood), repentance, the keeping of Shabbos, the study of Torah etc. etc.). In all of these contexts the Talmud never asks “va’halo ein kapara ela bedam”. It is only within the procedure of an animal sacrifice that the rabbis had a problem with another procedure aside from the sprinkling of the blood providing atonement.

You take umbrage with my words “This representation has no basis in fact”. You then challenge me to provide a written document from before the destruction which supports my theory.

When I said that the representation has no basis in fact, I was referring to the theory you advocate in your book that the Talmud itself in its present form says that while the temple stood there was no atonement without blood. I think that you now agree that my statement was correct.

Concerning your second theory, that the views of the rabbis changed with the destruction of the temple and that the Talmud unwittingly provides evidence to this, I would still say that your theory has no basis in fact. I think there is more evidence to support the theory that Jesus and his Jewish disciples believed that there was atonement without blood, than there is to support the theory that the rabbis of Jesus’ times believed in the Pauline doctrine of Hebrews 9:22. After all, Jesus does say that if you forgive others, God will forgive you. Acts 10:4 has an angel equating prayer and charity, with offerings in the temple – both of these seeming to work while the temple was still standing.

You challenge me to find a Pharisaic document from before the destruction which speaks of atonement without blood. Do you have one statement in any Jewish document (aside from the Christian literature) that makes the claim “there is no atonement without blood”? It is not in scripture, it is not found in the Rabbinic writings (when read in context), neither have I heard that the sectarian writings express such a theology. In fact I have seen quotations from the Dead Sea scrolls which clearly demonstrate that the sectarians believed that there is atonement without blood. I have seen quotations from the Aprocyphal writings which tell us that their authors believed in atonement for sin without blood. It seems that before Hebrews 9:22, no one heard of such a concept (of no atonement without blood).

4) A kingdom of priests

The reason this subject entered our dialogue was because I was trying to demonstrate that without the rabbinical writings you will have no answer for objection 3.14. You went on to argue that on a purely scriptural basis, you would say that the Jews were supposed to bring offerings for the gentiles – this based on the kingdom of priests passage in Exodus. (Even if I were to agree with the interpretation, this is still a far cry from the concept that the gentiles have no atonement without Israel’s offerings – in a sense that the plain meaning of the book of Yonah is utterly negated.) I wrote back to you saying, that if you would only have Jewish scripture to go with (and not the rabbinic writings or the Christian scriptures) you would never have come to this conclusion. The role of the priests towards the rest of Israel as bringing offerings for them, is not paralleled in scripture’s description of Israel’s role towards the nations. The role of the priests as teachers is paralleled. I think this is pretty straightforward.

You respond by asking me if I do not believe that the priests were intercessors for the rest of Israel. They certainly were intercessors for the people in the sense of praying for the people (Joel 2:17) paralleled by Jeremiah 29:7 in describing Israel’s role towards the nations amongst whom they were dispersed. The Kohanim were intercessors in the sense that they were a “lightening rod to attract God’s wrath upon themselves” (what a vivid expression!) As stated in Numbers 18:1 and as paralleled in Isaiah 53 in describing Israel’s role towards the nations. But as for the priests being intercessors in the sense of the bringing of offerings, I cannot find a parallel in scripture where this is described as Israel’s role towards the nations. So if one were to go on a strictly scriptural basis, he would sooner conclude that Israel is to pray and suffer for the nations before he would conclude that Israel must bring offerings for the nations.

You point out that as teachers for the nations, Paul Peter John and Matthew taught infinitively more than did the rabbinic sages.

When I read this point of yours, I was reminded of Elijah’s rebuke to Achav “haratzachta ve’gam yarashta?!”. Before Christianity came on the scene, there were many gentiles who respected the Jewish people. This number was growing until the teachers of Christianity came along and taught the gentiles a hatred for Judaism. Contrary to your perception of Christian history, I see that the early years of Christian history (before Constantine) were filled with hatred towards the Jewish people. I see this from books such as Franklin Littel’s “The Crucifixion of the Jews” who documents from primary sources how a hatred of Jews and Judaism was endemic to most forms of Christianity prevalent in the years before Constantine. Had these Christian teachers not taught the gentiles to despise Judaism, then the moral beauty of God’s teachings would have shone through our petty corruptions, and the gentiles would have learned.

Furthermore, the way that the gentile world understood the message of these Christian teachers (Paul Peter John and Matthew), was in a negative hateful and evil sense. Countless gentiles, amongst them countless men who were considered scholars of religion, throughout history understood that loyalty to the message of the Christian teachers meant a hatred of Jews. I can appreciate your argument that the original teachers of Christianity never meant their words to be taken that way, and that an honest reading of their words would lead one to recognize that they never meant it that way. (in the case of Paul I would perhaps agree with you, with Matthew and John – probably not). But you must realize, that the fact of the matter is that the social context from within which these gentiles read the message of Christianity didn’t allow them to see it any other way. The question is, if these were the teachers of the gentiles, doesn’t a good teacher recognize that the mind-set of his students will play a role in the understanding of his message at least equal to the words he uses? If these men were indeed divinely inspired, couldn’t they see the evil that their words will produce when accepted by the very social contexts to whom they were directing their words? All in all, I recognize that the teachings of Christianity brought blessing to many gentiles, but they brought the curse of sin to many more gentiles than they ever brought blessing to.

Even with all of the slander of Jews and Judaism coming from the mouth of the Christian teachers, still the Jewish people filled their role as priests of God. The Jewish counter-culture was an island of sanity and morality in a sea of idolatry and cruelty. There is no doubt in my mind (or in the mind of many scholars of history) that the steadfast loyalty of the Jewish people to God and His Torah, had a tempering effect on civilization. I believe that throughout history, the stance of the Jew had a positive effect on mankind, but in the past several centuries, this has become only more pronounced. At first the Jewish mind-set affected civilization on a secular level. The Jewish love for knowledge triggered advancement in the sciences, and the Jewish understanding of economics was an important catalyst in establishing the economies of the Western powers. The Jewish sense of justice played no small part in encouraging the concepts of democracy and freedom (I happened to once see the copy of the Mishna that Thomas Jefferson used – filled with his margin notes). I see this as a parallel to Joseph, who positively affected his gentile host-land in a material way. But I see the Jewish people affecting the gentile world in a religious way as well, this is especially true since the holocaust. The fact that the Jewish people came through the holocaust, severely crippled to be sure, but with their spiritual energy intact and even revitalized – caused many Christians to rethink their understanding of scripture. Many Christians have come to question the teaching of replacement theology (which began long before Constantine was born), based on the events of the holocaust. They have come to recognize to one degree or another that God’s blessing is still with the Jewish people. I see this as a parallel to the wrestle that Jacob had with the angel – who was trying to kill him. When the angel saw that he could not succeed, he was forced to bless Jacob and recognize that he is Yisroel.

In any case the full fulfillment of the Jewish people being the priests of Hashem will happen when the nations of the world become our farmers and vineyard tenders as promised by God through Isaiah 61:6.

Looking forward to hearing from you

Your Pharisee friend

Yisroel

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 | 1 Comment

Israel and Jerusalem – Eternal Choices

Posted on July 7, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Christians often use the example of the tabernacle as a justification for their worship of Jesus. The missionary contends that just as God came to dwell in the tabernacle, allowing His people to direct worship towards Him by bowing towards the Holy of Holies – so it is with Jesus, they claim. They argue that the infinite God came to dwell in Jesus’ finite body and therefore there is nothing wrong with the Christians directing their worship towards Jesus.

This fallacy of this argument is readily apparent. The tabernacle had no personality of its own. The tabernacle was an inanimate building within which God’s presence came to dwell. No one ever confused the tabernacle with God. No one ever claimed that the tabernacle was a second person in a triune godhead. Everyone understood that there are two separate entities here; the tabernacle and God, and no one ever confused the…

View original post 911 more words

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Midrash; Villain or Hero? – Excerpt from The Elephant and the Suit

Posted on July 2, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Volume 4 versus Volume 5

Dr. Brown devoted the fifth volume of his series to invalidate the oral traditions of Judaism. One of the major criticisms voiced by Dr. Brown against these traditions focuses on the style and method of the Biblical interpretations found in the Talmud. Often enough, we will find that the Talmudic interpretations do not seem to conform to the plain meaning of the Scriptural text and Dr. Brown sees this as an inexcusable fault of traditional Judaism. With righteous indignation Dr. Brown declares: “Nothing can violate the plain sense of the text and carry any authority, otherwise the written word has no meaning and no authority” (vol. 5, page 53).

 

Let us note that all of the major theological principles of Judaism are explicitly spelled out in the Bible. The adherents of Judaism do not need to rely on anyone’s Scriptural interpretations when it comes to the fundamentals of the faith.

 

In the following paragraphs I will present the foundational Jewish beliefs concerning the key issues that stand between Judaism and Christianity (worship of God, atonement from sin, and the advent of the Messiah). I will also demonstrate how these beliefs are supported by the Biblical text.

 

Our devotion is directed to the God who spoke to us at Sinai and to Him alone. This core belief of Judaism is clearly stated in Exodus 20:1, 2. The passage records how God told the people: “I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt from the house of bondage, you shall not recognize other gods before me”. This concept is repeated in Deuteronomy 4:35, where Moses reminds us: “You have been shown in order that you know that the Lord, He is the God there is none beside Him.”

 

Jews believe that God requires sincere repentance for the forgiveness of sin. This fundamental doctrine is plainly stated by the prophets. Isaiah taught: “Let the wicked one forsake his way and the iniquitous man his thoughts, let him return to the Lord and He will show him mercy, to our God for He is abundantly forgiving” (Isaiah 55:7). Ezekiel passes on the word of God: “As for the wicked one, if he repents from all his sins that he has committed, and he observes all My decrees and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he has committed will not be remembered against him…” (Ezekiel 18:21, 22).

 

All of Judaism’s core beliefs about the Messiah and the Messianic age are clearly expressed in the Jewish Scriptures.

 

The prophets spoke of the ingathering of the Jewish exile (Deuteronomy 30:3, Isaiah 11:12, 40:11, 43:5,6, 49:12,18,22, 60:4, 66:20, Jeremiah 3:18, 30:3, 31:7, 32:37, Ezekiel 11:17, 20:41, 34:13, 36:24, 37:21).

 

The prophets spoke of a Temple in Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:2, 60:7, Jeremiah 33:18, Ezekiel 37:26, 43:7, 44:15, Micah 4:1).

 

The Scripture tells us about a national return to Torah observance (Deuteronomy 30:8, Jeremiah 31:32, Ezekiel 11:20, 36:27, 37:24, 44:23,24).

 

The prophets taught us about universal peace (Isaiah 2:4, 65:25, Jeremiah 33:9,16, Ezekiel 34:25,28, 37:26, Hosea 2:20, Psalm 72:3).

 

And Israel looks forward to a world that is filled with the knowledge of God (Isaiah 11:9, 45:23, 54:13, 66:18,19,23, Jeremiah 3:17, 31:33, Ezekiel 38:23, Zephaniah 3:9, Zechariah 8:20‑23, 14:9,16).

 

The fundamentals of Judaism are explicitly spelled out in the Scriptures. It is only within the limited realm of practical observance of the Law of Moses that the rabbis applied the Talmudic method of Scriptural interpretation. In most cases, the rabbis applied these Scriptural interpretations only as a supplement to the plain meaning of the text, and not as a replacement for the plain meaning of the text. Furthermore, the theology that Dr. Brown is promoting has relegated Torah observance to practically nothing, in blatant violation of the plain meaning of the text. The historical record confirms that the Talmud embodies the only practicable form of obedience to the Law of Moses that is viable in the context of an eternal community. Dr. Brown brushes these considerations aside. Dr. Brown discredits the Talmud and her teachers because the Talmud contains Scriptural interpretations that are not in line with the plain contextual meaning of the Bible.

 

Let us turn back to Volume 4. It is here that Dr. Brown notices that the foundational texts of Christianity advocate a new belief system, a set of core beliefs that were hitherto unknown to the Jewish people. These writers teach that the Messianic era will incorporate a new election, an election of devotees of the Messiah. These writers preached that atonement for sin is achieved through loyalty to an individual. And the later generations of Christian teachers proclaimed belief in a trinity.

 

Not one of these foundational Christian concepts can be found in the Jewish Bible. (There are many scholars who believe that belief in the trinity cannot be found even in the Christian Scriptures, but that point is beyond the scope of this discussion.) The teachers of Christianity expected their Jewish audience to accept these radically new concepts on the basis of their own twisted Scriptural interpretations. These teachers did not stop there. They condemned everyone and anyone who did not accept their teachings to the eternal fires of hell.

 

Dr. Brown attempts to address this issue in his first section of Volume 4. Dr. Brown gives restrained expression to the Jewish objection: “The New Testament misquotes and misinterprets the Old Testament. At times it manufactures verses to suit its purposes” (page 3).  Dr. Brown does not share with his readers the fact that all of the theological underpinnings of Christianity stand on these fanciful interpretations and on nothing else, but for a Christian, he said a lot.

 

As part of his response to this Jewish objection, Dr. Brown cites the Talmud. Dr. Brown demonstrates to his readers how the authors of the Talmud utilized a free-flowing method of Scriptural interpretation, and he tells us that the early Christian teachers were simply doing the same.

 

Dr. Brown does not tell his readers that the authors of the Talmud did not use these interpretative methods to establish the fundamentals of their faith. Neither does he tell his readers that in Volume 5 he will point to these same interpretative methods to condemn Judaism. And he certainly does not tell his readers how the same interpretative methods of the Talmud can serve to exonerate the teachers of Christianity, while they stand as a condemnation for the teachers of Judaism.

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 | 21 Comments

Consumer Alert!

Posted on June 29, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

yourphariseefriend's avatar1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources

Consumer Alert!

You may be wondering: What is a “consumer alert” doing on a blog that focuses on religion? Perhaps you never thought about it this way, but religion involves a transaction. There is an exchange taking place. The Christian missionary is encouraging you to give the
devotion of your heart to Jesus and he is promising you eternal life in return for what you have given.

I may have offended you by comparing religion to a financial transaction. You may be thinking that this is a crass, materialistic and inappropriate way to talk about religious worship. I am not planning to apologize. I see it as my duty to explain the truth as I
understand it. If this parable achieves the aim that one person attains one iota of clarity in this weighty issue, I would be remiss if I were to withhold it from him or her.

Let…

View original post 1,215 more words

Posted in General | Leave a comment

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