In Good Company

Posted on February 20, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

In Good Company

Shapira continues to demonstrate his ineptitude. In his latest video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgQOBqOx0ow ) he quotes the Radak as if he interpreted Micah 5:1 as a teaching on the pre-existence of the Messiah.

In fact the Radak devotes his entire comment to disprove this very notion. Shapira has thoroughly misunderstood the Radak’s holy words and I feel honored to be in such noble company. You see, Shapira has thoroughly misunderstood my own humble words as well. Contrary to Shapira’s assertion, I never stated that the Hebrew word “kedem” in Micah 5:1 means “east.” Shapira seems to have confused my critique of his handling of the Targum of Isaiah 9 with my critique of his misquotation of the Targum on Micah 5.

In any case I do commend Shapira for finally telling his audience where they can read my critique of his work. I trust that upon reading my critique, the audience will see the truth about Shapira and his teachings.

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 | 4 Comments

Reading the Dictionary

Posted on February 18, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Reading the Dictionary

 

In his latest video (http://youtu.be/Nij3I_Rw0g4 ) Shapira presents a quotation from the Jastrow Dictionary. He is attempting to prove that the Aramaic word “palach” (or derivatives of that word) must be referring to worship of the divine. Shapira insists that this word refers exclusively to devotion to God and not to service of a human being.

He could not be more wrong, and the same entry from the Jastrow dictionary proves him wrong.

Shapira looks straight into the camera and he tells his audience that “palach means “worship.” But the dictionary entry that he presented says that while “palach” can mean worship it can also mean service of a human. In fact the first Biblical reference on the line that Shapira snipped out of the dictionary is Genesis 14:4 which speaks of service of a human and the classic Aramaic Targum translates the word with a derivative of “palach.”

Take your choice. Either Shapira cannot read a basic dictionary entry, or Shapira is  confident that his audience is incapable of reading a basic dictionary entry and he has the audacity to lie straight to those who trust in him.

Either way, one thing is for sure. When Shapira looks straight into the camera and makes an emphatic point his confidence is not rooted in truth.

One more point before I sign off. Shapira was ordained as a “rabbi” by a Christian organization. One of the common duties of a rabbi is to officiate at wedding ceremonies. The text of the Jewish marriage contract contains derivatives of the word “palach.” In the context of the wedding contract the word means fulfillment of responsibility from a husband toward his wife and the word carries no connotation of worship of a deity.

If Shapira cannot read a basic Jewish marriage contract then what does this tell you about the organization that saw fit to ordain him as a rabbi?

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 | 20 Comments

Innocent Trust

Posted on February 17, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Innocent Trust

The following words are not addressed to Tzahi Shapira. These words are also not directed to those religious leaders who endorsed him and presented him to the public as a scholar. I am writing to those who do not readily have the ability to evaluate the teachings of Shapira but instead rely on the evaluation of their leaders.

Your leaders are making a laughingstock of you.

I have already pointed out (https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/spiritual-responsibility/ ) how Shapira emphatically argues that a particular Hebrew word must be translated in a certain way. He makes this argument against a respected translator of the Bible. We would assume that he did not make this argument lightly. If he is going to discard the work of scholars we would expect that he researched the matter thoroughly and only then did he come to his dramatic conclusion.

But these assumptions would be dead wrong.

Shapira himself translates the same Hebrew word several times in the same book just like the translators whose work he trashed.

This is a man that does not take his own arguments seriously. How then does he expect others to take his words seriously?

In his latest series of videos he continues to display his amazing ineptitude.

In the video entitled Objection 10 ( http://youtu.be/jdlhUfa0CPc ) Shapira attempts to defend himself against my critique of his quotation from the Rosh Hashana prayer (https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/the-school-of-matthew/ ). My critique was limited to one paragraph. In this paragraph I simply stated that the article (authored by professor Yehuda Liebes) that Shapira quotes to support his theology actually refutes it. While Professor Liebes does believe that the prayer is referring to Jesus (a conclusion that I reject), he makes it clear that the authors of the prayer did not believe that Jesus was divine.

In his lengthy video response Shapira tells his audience that he is responding to my critique but he does not share my argument with the audience. Throughout the video Shapira fails to address my argument. Furthermore, Shapira does not tell his audience where they can read my argument. If this is not a mockery of the trust that the audience has placed in him then what is?

In the video entitled Objection 11 (http://youtu.be/0K74ocNR8Iw )  Shapira continues to mock the intelligence of his audience. He argues that the Hebrew word “echad” means a “compound unity” because it is derived from the Hebrew word “achdut.” That is as ridiculous as saying that the English word “unit” is derived from the English word “united” and must therefore mean an entity that is part of a political alliance. Or that perhaps the word “unit” must be associated with the airline that goes by the name “United.”

This is the “scholarship” that the leaders of Christendom are comfortable to pass on to those who trust them.

The Hebrew word “echad” simply means “one” and the Hebrew word “yachid” means an “only one.” Both of these words can refer to either absolute or compound unities. There is nothing inherent in the definition of the words that limit their usage to absolute or to compound unities.

Shapira goes on to misquote a midrash (a book of rabbinic homiletical teachings) in a manner that would embarrass a schoolchild. The midrash contrasts God’s humility over and against the haughtiness of human kings. The midrash tells us that a king of flesh and blood would not allow another to use his name, but God allowed Moses to use his name (Exodus 7:1). The midrash continues by telling us how a king of flesh and blood would not allow another to wear his garment but God allows Israel to wear His garment. A king of flesh and blood would not allow another to sit on his throne but God allowed Solomon to sit on His throne (1Chronicles 29:23). In this context we read that a king of flesh and blood would not allow another to wear his crown but God will place His crown on the head of the Messiah.

Shapira completely misunderstood the entire thrust of the midrash and he isolated the passage about the Messiah. Shapira presents the opening phrase of the sentence as if it said that God would not allow a king of flesh and blood to wear His crown. Based on this nonsensical mistranslation, Shapira concludes that the point of the midrash is that the Messiah is not a king of flesh and blood.

Is there no limit to the absurd?

At no point does Shapira tell his audience where they could study my critique of his work. Trusting that his audience will not discover my blog, Shapira tells his audience that I ignore his misquotation of a particular passage in the Zohar (a book of rabbinic mysticism). The fact of the matter is that I dedicated an article to that passage in the Zohar, but Shapira expects his audience to take his word as gospel truth https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/context-and-kabbalah/ .

In the video entitled Objection 12 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4fKQn_RyXM ) Shapira goes on to demonstrate his ignorance of Jewish literature starting with the biblical book of Psalms. At the 6:30 mark Shapira formulates his own version of a verse from the Psalms. He obviously forgot the words but he had no hesitation filling them in from his faulty memory relying on the trust that his audience places in his scholarly supporters to get away with this foolishness. Where is Shapira’s respect for the Scriptures? Does his attitude toward this book not demand that he take the pains to quote the text with accuracy? Where is his respect for the audience?

Shapira tells his audience that all Hassidic Jews believe in the “compound unity” of God. He bases this incredible accusation on the fact that Hassidic Jews accept the kabalistic terms of “sefirot” as they relate to God’s interaction with the world.

The Hassidic thinkers as well as many Kabbalists that preceded the Hassidic movement directly addressed Shapira’s accusation. They clearly explained that the “sefirot” do not describe God’s essence in any way and that God is absolutely one. These Jews who are steadfast in their loyalty to the covenant that our nation shared with God taught that the “sefirot” represent different lenses through which God interacts with the world but in no way do they define or describe God’s essence.

Shapira ignores the direct words of these authors and he ascribes his own idolatry to the teachers of Judaism. He concocts an imaginary interpretation of some of the terms of Jewish mysticism and he presents it to his audience as “Judaism.” There is no need to refute his malarkey because it has no basis outside of his own imagination.

In this same video Shapira goes on to misquote and mistranslate a passage from the midrash (Otiyot d’Rabbi Akiva 13). Shapira presents a document that speaks of the “triangular” nature of God. He tells his audience that the midrash says that all of the oneness of God is in three. I searched through many editions of the midrash that Shapira had quoted and not one of them had the sentence formulated in the way Shapira presents it. The midrash simply points to a pattern of praise that is offered to God in triplicate and to triplicate pattern found in the mentioning of God’s name. The midrash says nothing about God’s essence nor does it say anything about triangles. The Hebrew word for triplicate is sometimes used to describe a triangle but in the context of this midrash the meaning of the word is clearly “triplicate” and not “triangle.”

Since the publication of Shapira’s book, the Jewish community has taken the trouble to lay out in writing why it is that his book deserves no consideration. One of the criticisms directed at Shapira’s book is that he manufactures quotations out of thin air. If these accusations were false they would be the easiest to refute. All that Shapira would need to do is to provide the references for his quotations. In the twelve videos that Shapira has released in response to the Jewish critique of his writing he failed to provide a single reference for the quotations that he was accused of fabricating. Instead of correcting the errors that fill his book Shapira devotes these video responses to the perpetration of new mistakes.

What else does Shapira need to do in order to prove to you that his teachings are not rooted in truth?

Some of those who endorsed Shapira’s book are capable of seeing through the thin veneer of his audacity. These leaders were presented with detailed critiques of Shapira’s work yet not one of them has so much as said a word of warning to those audiences who trust in their endorsement of Shapira and his book. This incredible display of spiritual irresponsibility makes a mockery of the trust that their followers have placed in them. Moses foresaw this abuse of innocent trust when he wrote Deuteronomy 27:18.

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 | 55 Comments

Caleb’s Spirit

Posted on February 12, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Caleb’s Spirit

 

One of the moist tragic episodes in Israel’s history is described in Numbers 13. The Jewish people sent 12 spies to the land of Israel to reconnoiter the territory. At the conclusion of their mission the spies split into two camps. 10 of the men brought back a discouraging report to the nation. They convinced the people that the inhabitants of the land are too powerful and that the Jewish people are incapable of capturing the country. The other two men, Joshua and Caleb, vehemently disagreed with the assessment of their comrades. They attempted to convince the people that it is entirely within their capability to inherit the land.

 

The nation as a whole accepted the discouraging report of the ten and they despaired of their ability to enter the land of Israel. The prophetic narrative tells us that Israel’s despair was a rebellion against God and God punished the people for this rebellion (Psalm 106:27). But Caleb was not punished for this rebellion. God points to Caleb’s spirit as an example of loyalty to God.

 

What was the dividing line between the spirit of Caleb and the spirit of those who opposed him? Why is Caleb’s spirit the spirit of loyalty while the spirit of those who despaired of capturing the land a spirit of rebellion?

 

It all boils down to trust. God took the people out of Egypt and He said that they will inherit the Land of Israel. Perhaps it didn’t make sense on paper. The armies of the Canaanites may have been stronger than those of the Israelites. The defenses of the fortified cities may have been impenetrable to the Jewish army who did not possess the necessary weapons to overcome such obstacles. But those are human calculations. These are not the calculations of a heart that trusts in God.

 

Those who trust in God do not calculate. They trust in God’s goodness and are tranquil in that trust. Caleb did not see obstacles. He saw God’s word, he saw God’s plan and He trusted in God’s goodness. This is the spirit of loyalty to God.

 

We can take Caleb’s lesson to heart in the age-old argument between Paul and the Jewish people.

 

God gave us a Law through His trusted prophet. God assured us that this Law is the path to life and to all goodness (Deuteronomy 30:15; Psalm 19:8). Paul brings us a message of despair. He tells us that the plan that God mapped out for us is fraught with obstacles. Paul argued that it is impossible for man to inherit the land by following God’s Law.

 

The spirit of Caleb would have us reject Paul’s message of despair. Caleb’s example of loyalty to God would have us tell Paul; “we can indeed arise and inherit it, it is within our capabilities! God is with us, we have nothing to fear!”

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 | 9 Comments

Portal versus Distraction

Posted on February 12, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Portal versus Distraction

 

The Temple occupies a central place in the theology of Judaism. The climax of the exodus occurred when God’s presence came to dwell in the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34) and the climax of history will be achieved when God’s presence is restored to the Temple in Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:2). When Jews pray, they direct their faces toward the Temple Mount in Zion. The Temple is where God meets man; this is the House of God (Genesis 28:17).

 

Those who promote devotion to Jesus attempt to exploit this concept for the advancement of their missionary campaign. The missionaries point to all of the attention that Judaism directs toward the Jerusalem Temple. They then argue that Jesus is the “real” temple and that their devotion to him is thus justified. The Christian Scriptures echo this argument when they compare Jesus to the Jerusalem Temple (John 2:21).

 

This argument does not get off the ground.

 

No one directs devotion toward the Temple itself. The Temple is seen as a portal, a gateway through which we can meet God. By focusing on the obedience to God reflected in the service of the Temple, by focusing on the love for God that was poured into the construction of the Temple, we move beyond the Temple and our hearts encounter God. The Temple serves as a doorway through which our hearts walk in order to meet God.

 

The Christians devotion to Jesus sees Jesus as an object of worship in and of himself. Jesus is not a “doorway” to God, he is a distraction that diverts attention away from God. A doorway is something that you pass through and leave behind you as you move on. The Christian theology would have the devotee focus on Jesus forever. According to the Church Jesus never gets “left behind.” A doorway that needs to be taken with you wherever you go is no doorway.

 

The Christian misunderstanding of the Temple spreads to another Scriptural concept.

 

There are several passages in scripture which describe a prophet’s encounter with an angelic being and this encounter culminates in a conversation with God. The Church misinterprets these encounters and this misunderstanding is rooted in their misunderstanding of the Temple’s function. Just as the Church cannot see the Temple as a gateway through which our hearts move to meet God, so it is with these angelic beings. Instead of seeing these beings as portals through which the prophets moved to encounter God, the Church insists on deifying some of these angelic beings.

 

The three angels that ate with Abraham (Genesis 18:1,2) , the angel that appeared to Moses from the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-4), the cloud of glory that Israel witnessed in the wilderness (Exodus 15:10) and the angel that spoke to Gideon (Judges 6:11-14) were all portals through which an encounter with God was achieved. The prophet or the people were able to move their hearts and minds away from the material world when they directed their attention to the angelic being. But they did not stop there. They moved beyond the angelic being and they encountered God Himself.

 

This concept is reflected in the Tabernacle’s Holy of Holies. No one entered the Holy of Holies except for the High Priest, and even the High Priest only entered the Holy of Holies once a year (Leviticus 16:2). The only vessel that was situated in the Holy of Holies was the Ark of the Covenant. It was from on top of the Ark of the Covenant that Moses heard God’s voice and it was at that point where God’s presence came to dwell (Numbers 7:89). The Ark was decorated with two golden cherubs and it was from between them that the voice emerged. God is called the One who dwells upon the cherubim (Psalm 80:2).

 

The cherubs upon the Ark represent this concept. These golden angels represent the angelic beings that act as portals through which our hearts and our minds move to encounter God. No one ever attributed divinity to the cherubs themselves. It is clear to one and all that these cherubs were simply a gateway through which our hearts move toward God and through which God’s voice emerges to speak with His prophets.

 

The Temple and the angelic beings serve to draw our attention away from the material world. But they do not draw attention to themselves. They draw our focus beyond themselves and direct our attention toward God.

 

In their effort to justify devotion to Jesus the Church has misunderstood these Scriptural concepts. The Church has taken gateways and portals and turned them into and end for themselves. By deifying Jesus, the Church has turned Jesus into the polar opposite of the Temple and of the angelic beings that the prophets encountered. The Temple and the angels direct our attention to God, the Church’s Jesus attempts to direct attention toward himself. By demanding devotion to himself, Jesus becomes a distraction from God, which is the exact opposite of a gateway to God.

 

The message of Scripture and the testimony of Israel refute this error. God’s witnesses declare to one and all; there is no object that deserves our devotion except for the One who created us all.

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 | 1 Comment

The Angel of the Lord – Excerpt from Council of my Nation

Posted on February 10, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

The Angel of the Lord

Let us move on now to those passages in which God seems to be interchangeable with an angel. In chapter 18 of Genesis three men appear to Abraham. It turns out that two of these men were actually angels (Genesis 19:1). But who was the third one? According to some Jewish commentators (Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra), the third man was actually an angel who is called by God’s name. It is this third angel whom Abraham was speaking to and addressing as “Lord”. The Christians argue that this proves that God can take on the form of an angel and even the form of a human, for did this angel not eat and drink with Abraham under the tree? The Jew would point out that this angel was not worshiped and that there is no commandment that we worship this angel. When God appears to the prophets He often sends an angel to represent Him for the purpose of passing on His message to the prophet. The angel speaks the words of God, and the prophet addresses God by speaking to the angel – but the angel is not God. How can we know whose interpretation is correct? Is the angel God incarnate and deserving of worship as the Christian would have it? Or is the angel only passing on God’s words but is an entity distinct and separate from God as the Jew would have it?

Fortunately we have some other passages in scripture which could help us sort things out. Exodus 23:20 has God telling Moses that He will send an angel before the Jewish people. God commands Moses to hearken to the voice of this angel. Here is the direct quote (Exodus 23:22 -) “But rather you shall hearken to his voice and do all that I speak”. In other words God wants Moses to obey the command of the angel because it is God’s words that the angel speaks, but the angel is clearly an entity separate from God. Similarly in Numbers chapter 22 we find an angel speaking God’s words, yet the angel is an entity distinct from God. In verse 35 of that chapter the angel tells Bileam “but the word which I speak that you shall speak”, yet in chapter 23 verse 5 it is God who puts the words in Bileam’s mouth. Again, the angel is the one who speaks God’s words and scripture refers to it as “God speaking”. The very designation “mal’ach” (generally translated as “angel”) literally means “messenger”, highlighting the fact that the angel is an entity subservient to God charged with a mission – but is not an entity who is to be seen as co-equal with God. In fact we find that human messengers of God (also referred to by the term “mal’ach – angel” Haggai 1:13) speaking God’s words. In the book of Deuteronomy we find Moses speaking God’s words without any introductory phrases, he just slips from speaking God’s words in the third person to speaking God’s words in the first person – (Deuteronomy 11:15). No-one attributes divinity to Moses, yet in capacity of messenger to the Lord he speaks for God. God uses messengers, both human and angelic through whom He brings His word to this physical world – but there is no indication that any worship is to be directed to these messengers. These messengers are clearly distinct from God, and as such, are not deserving of worship.

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 | 43 Comments

The Historical Jesus and the Historicity of the Christian Scriptures

Posted on February 6, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

The Historical Jesus and the Historicity of the Christian Scriptures

Much ink has been expended in the effort to uncover the historical Jesus. The questions abound. Was Jesus a radical revolutionary against the oppressive Roman Empire or was he a pacifist who decried the use of force? Was Jesus an imposter or was he a messenger from on high? Was he a prophet or was he a deluded dreamer? What theology did Jesus preach? Did he preach a Trinity or did he advocate a pure monotheistic faith?

 

All of these arguments center on the work of literature that is known as the Christian Scripture. It is in this set of books that the character and the history of Jesus are depicted. This series of books brings a new set of questions to the discussion. Who authored these books? When were these books authored? Was there another document that preceded these books from which these writers drew their narratives? Are these books reliable?

 

It is not for me to attempt to resolve these questions. I do not believe that these questions can be resolved decisively and conclusively. The events in questions took place in the distant past. Any theory, no matter how convincing, can only remain speculation.

 

What we can do and what is incumbent upon us to do is to put this discussion in perspective. In the complexities of the conversations certain common denominators tend to get lost. By recognizing the common thread that is present in all of the theories about Jesus and the books that describe his life we can bring some balance to this debate.

 

Any discussion about a human being must recognize its limitations. No man can truly know what transpires in the heart of his fellow man. Only God can see the heart (1Samuel 16:7). We can only evaluate the words and the activities that our subject brought out into the open. Since this discussion is about a man who lived and died a long time ago, we cannot evaluate all of his words and actions. We can only measure those words and those actions that were preserved in the writings and in the hearts of those who were impacted by his life. In other words this can never be a discussion about Jesus. We can only discuss the impression that Jesus left behind him in this world.

 

These impressions themselves are ever-changing. New interpretations of Jesus’ words and teachings are being developed on a regular basis. Is it at all possible to determine with any accuracy the content of the original impression that Jesus left behind him? I think that not. But I do believe that we can be confident about one element of the original impression that Jesus made on those who lived with him. There is one constant quality that every strand of evidence affirms concerning the impression that Jesus left behind him. There is no dispute that Jesus raised up a following that saw love for Jesus as a central feature, if not the central feature of their universe.

 

Since that time, all who considered themselves followers of Jesus accepted this constant. All who follow Jesus accept that a person’s love for Jesus or lack thereof is the most important defining quality of man. These followers of Jesus defined themselves and they evaluated their connection to other people primarily on the basis of their feelings toward Jesus.

 

Yes, there was and there still is conflict about which Jesus to love. Is it a Trinitarian Jesus or is it a Unitarian Jesus? Is it a pacifist Jesus or is it a Jesus who wants to see his enemies destroyed? But all who like to see themselves as extensions of Jesus’ impact on human society agree that love for Jesus is a central feature of their worldview.

 

The books of the Christian Scriptures were products of this community. It is difficult to determine with any certainty the precise theological parameters of the writers of the gospels, but there is no question that they saw love for Jesus as a principal element of existence. The most important line in the universe of the gospel writers was the divide between those who love Jesus and those who don’t.

 

It is naïve to read the books of Christian Scripture without recognizing this truth. These writers loved Jesus in an extreme way. It is clear that these people would not have demanded the same standard of evidence that an objective outsider would demand before accepting something positive or before discounting something negative about their hero.

 

To say that the books of Christian Scriptures are historical documents is misleading. Yes, these books were written a long time ago. But do these books present objective historical facts? It would be foolish to believe so. It is clear that these books are presenting the worldview of people whose hearts were completely committed to Jesus. Not only were these books written by people with a deep love for Jesus in their hearts, but these books were written with the express purpose of promoting and justifying that love. Few factors can distort a person’s view of reality to the same extent as the factor of love for an individual.

 

The ramifications of this truth are manifold. When the Christian Scriptures report that Jesus performed many glorious miracles, we need to read those words with the understanding that those who wrote them had a deep motivation to believe those reports. When these writers present fanciful Scriptural interpretations that exalt Jesus we need to recognize that there was a driving force in their hearts that wanted to see these interpretations in the words of the prophets. When the gospel writers vilify those who did not share their love for Jesus, we need to realize that the centerpiece of their worldview would have them interpret reality in this way.

 

We can know very little about Jesus today, so many centuries after his death. But we can be sure that he left behind him a legacy that elevated people’s love for him to an extreme degree.

 

The question that needs to be asked when reading the Christian Scriptures is if this love is justified? What legacy of justification did the gospel writers present for this central element of their message? Perhaps more important is the question of what kind of legacy of respect did they pass on concerning the ethical and moral responsibility for people to question that love.

 

Did the community that Jesus raised respect the process of honest questioning before loving? Or did they redefine honesty according to the love that was so central to their universe?

 

These are the questions that we should be asking about the historical Jesus. For this is the imprint that he left on the minds and hearts of men.

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

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

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

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

 

Posted in History | 65 Comments

A Letter from the Past – Still Looking Forward

Posted on February 4, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Dr. Brown

Here is my response to your post # 358

I believe that with this response of yours – a great breakthrough was achieved in our interaction – vindicating the usefulness of such interaction. I will explain this statement as I proceed to respond to your points one by one.

In my previous post (on this topic) I put our disagreements into two categories: Messianic expectations and interpretation of Isaiah 53.

On the issue of Messianic expectation

I demonstrated how you apply a double standard in your interpretation of Messianic prophecy. When it comes to the Jewish expectation of a rebuilt Temple and restored sacrifices you measure them by the number of times these concepts are mentioned in Scripture (according to your count, they are few), You measure them by the fact that in some of these prophecies, no Messianic figure is mentioned, and you measure them by the fact that there seems to be a problem with the timing of some of the prophecies (the context would indicate a fulfillment at a time that does not coincide with the Jewish interpretation).

On the basis of these measuring sticks – you downplay these prophecies and conclude that they could perhaps be fulfilled in a symbolic sense and not necessarily in a literal sense.

I pointed out that had you applied these same “measuring sticks” to the prophecies which are interpreted by Christians as prediction for Messiah’s miracles – then we could even more quickly conclude that the Messiah does not necessarily need to preform miracles in a literal sense.

But you insist that the miracles must be literal. You go on to pass judgment against Maimonides who insists on a literal fulfillment of the Temple prophecies while maintaining that the miracle prophecies need not be understood literally.

But using your own standards of interpretation – Maimonides is right.

How do you explain this? You say – Well Jesus already told us that this is the interpretation!

This then is the breakthrough. We have come to an agreement, it seems, that without FIRST accepting Jesus as an authority – the Jewish Bible does NOT encourage belief in Jesus.

If you need Jesus to tell you that your biblical interpretation is correct – then you should have said so in your book. You open your five volumes setting the standard for this discussion: “What does the Bible say?” But now you are admitting that according to that standard – Jesus is NOT the Messiah. The only way you can come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah – is by first accepting him as the Messiah and then accepting his Biblical interpretations.

It is my position that the moral position for someone who does not believe in Jesus is to examine his claims in light of the Biblical texts. Until his claims are vindicated –– it would be going against God to accept his claims. We must therefore first read the Jewish Bible – without belief in Jesus – and then examine his claims in light of the truth we have learned from God’’s word. The fact that you need to quote Jesus to defend your position underscores the fact that your position is not rooted in the words of the Jewish Bible.

You claim that the reason you pointed out the relatively small number of passages predicting the future Temple is because traditional Judaism puts the future Temple on the same plane as world peace as a Messianic requirement. You conclude that Scripture does not bear this out.

I suggest that you turn to page 178 of your volume 3 and you will see that you were not contrasting the hope for the Temple with the hope for peace (which you yourself minimize on page 70 of volume 1) – but you were contrasting the hope for a future Temple with the alleged miracles of the Messiah. This being the case – my citation of the number of passages is completely relevant.

In another paragraph you accuse me of creating a strawman (you generously add – “probably unintentional”) by presenting it as an issue of “either or”. With this accusation you have created a strawman of your own (probably unintentionally). In my opening statements which you yourself copied in the beginning of your own response – I presented the two opposing positions – not as “either or”, but rather with the one requiring miracles as an absolute necessity while relegating the temple to a possibility – as opposed to the other which has the Temple as the absolute requirement and the miracles remain a possibility.

You skip over some of my points because you see no relevance to them. I am sure that the readers of this conversation (including myself) will want to know your response to two of my questions that you seem to deem “irrelevant”. 1) Do you believe that the number of verses supporting a specific doctrinal position is a valid standard by which to judge the Scriptural basis of a given position? And if yes, then why, throughout your five volumes, do you never apply this standard to the arguments of the Church? (i.e the virgin birth etc) 2) How is it that in your interview with Stroebel Zechariah 6 is magnified as “the most overt passage in the Bible where a human being is identified with a Messianic figure” – and on page 172 of volume 3 you downplay this very same prophecy because it appears in only one book of the Bible. Isn’t that being inconsistent in your own line of reasoning?

I countered your argument concerning the timing of the predictions concerning the Temple – by pointing out that the predictions of Messiah’s miracles are also tied in by the prophets to a specific time – which precludes applying these predictions to Jesus.

You respond with the argument that “Messiah” (and I presume you mean “Jesus”) came working these very miracles.

This response is completely circular. You are in effect saying – believe in Jesus because he fulfilled this prophecy – but when I point out that according to a contextual reading of the prophecy he did not fulfil the prophecy – you tell me – but Jesus said he did! – so why should I accept his interpretation?

Your next argument is “that there is nothing in the context of, say, Isaiah 61 that precludes the Messianic interpretation” – I assume that you mean to assert that there is nothing in the context of Isaiah 61 that precludes your application of this passage to Jesus. I may have misunderstood you and if I did please clarify – but if I understood you correctly then your assertion is patently false. Isaiah 61 speaks of a “day of revenge” – which you acknowledge was not yet fulfilled. If a 2000 year interlude in middle of a sentence, without any textual justification, is “sound Biblical interpretation” for you – I guess I will have to be the one to inform you – that others will not be satisfied.

When I present my question about your double standard (asking the question if a given prophecy is symbolic or literal) – you go back to “the Messiah has already come”. Are you saying that it is OK for you to use a double standard because you “know” you are right?

The point I made about symbolic language was that as far as I could see, Scripture never uses a specific type of sheep as a metaphor. I did not say that it is not theoretically possible – my point was that this would be unusual – weakening the symbolic interpretation. You response does not address my point.

In response to my summary which asks a simple question – if we are going to apply a certain standard for the Jewish expectations of the Messiah – that we should do the same for the Christian expectations – you respond with:

“Of course we should, and that’s why we look at David as the proto-type (priestly King) and that’’s why we pay attention to the time line (expected before the destruction of the Second Temple), and that’’s why we then allow the Messiah’’s first coming to shed light on the meaning of the passages. All very clear, thank God!”

How is this clear? You take a Jewish argument and (mis)apply a certain standard of interpretation. You do this with one Jewish argument – ignoring the sum total of the Jewish arguments. So why are you reluctant to apply this same standard to the Christian arguments? Is it because you have other arguments to support your position? But when I will point to the inherent weaknesses of those arguments – you will run back to this one! What kind of response is that?

In any case – here is the response to the two arguments that you present. – Looking to David as a prototype is the last thing you want to do. It is hard to imagine a character that is more thoroughly antithetical to David than Jesus. David consistently stresses his own utter dependance on God – highlighting his sins – opening his heart to all of mankind expressing his complete humility towards God. How does this compare to a “mystery-man” who claims to be sinless and deserving of worship himself?

In response to your second argument – about the timing (Messiah had to come before the destruction of the Second Temple) – which you refer to Haggai 2, Malachi 3 and Daniel 9. I don’t see how you can apply these prophecies to Jesus. How could a prediction for a glorification of the Temple (predicted by Haggai) be fulfilled by one who claimed to be a replacement of the Temple?. How could a prediction of the restoration of the Levitical priesthood (predicted by Malachi) be fulfilled by one who claimed to do away with the Levitical priesthood?. And how could a prediction (by Daniel) about an anointed one cut off with the destruction of the city claim to be fulfilled by someone who died more than five weeks of years (in Daniel’s terms) before the destruction of the city?

Interpretation of Isaiah 53

I asked you if 53:9 could apply to Israel – you respond with a question “why in the world am I limiting the discussion to one verse when we have the whole chapter”. The answer to your question is because chapters are made up of verses – one verse at a time. If you refuse to discuss “one verse” – because you claim that the rest of the chapter bears out your position – then we will have a hard time discussing the matter. When I point to any one verse – you will run to the “rest of the chapter” – and when I point out that your arguments in those other verses don’t pan out – you will always be able to say – “ah! but look at the rest of the chapter”.

The fact of the matter is that there is no individual in the history of mankind that is more thoroughly eliminated from being a possible subject of this passage (Isaiah 53) as is Jesus from Nazareth. The entire thrust of the passage is that when the arm of the Lord is revealed upon the servant – the world will be shocked. If there is anyone that this cannot be – it is Jesus. So there is the “rest of the chapter” for you.

Getting back to this one verse – 53:9 – you are saying that it cannot be corporate Israel. So are you saying that the Jews when the Jews were butchered because of the accusations that they murdered Christian children and because they had stolen the world’s wealth through deception – that they were indeed guilty of these charges?

You claim that when I speak of Israel’s guilt compared to the guilt of the nations I have introduced a “new category”. I gave you 9 Scriptural references – and you call this a “new category”!? Let us take the first one on the list – Isaiah 26:2; where Israel is praised as the righteous nation who kept her faithfulness. It is obvious that Israel is singled out from amongst the nations for this praise. They are being praised not for something new that is given to them but for the faithfulness towards God that they maintained throughout the exile. (Contrast this with the exaltation of the Messiah described in chapter 11 which will be for new qualities that will be granted to him at that time – not for qualities that he possessed before then.)

In 49:23 Israel is rewarded for having hoped to God – from the context it is obvious that the nations do not share in this reward. The concept is reiterated again and again throughout the book of Isaiah – all those who worship idols will be shamed when everyone sees that the God who Israel trusted in is the true God. Israel will be exalted to the eyes of the nations for maintaining this trust in God throughout the exile – something that no nation will share with them.

When the nations will see the exaltation of God (and Jesus will have no part in this exaltation) they will realize that their worship of Jesus was idolatry. They will realize that Israel’s rejection of Jesus was her greatest virtue. They will realize that all the material blessing that they were blessed with came about because the Jewish people prayed to God for the prosperity of the countries they inhabited – and not because of their own prayers to Jesus.

This brings us to your arguments against my interpretation as to how Israel brought healing to the nations. You quote Jeremiah 51:9 which actually proves my point – the healing of the nation is not some spiritual gift – but material blessing here on earth. History vindicates my interpretation because countries that allowed the Jews to live amongst them – prospered – while those that expelled them – declined. As for Babylon; Jeremiah wasn’t making a joke in 29:7. The Jewish prayers helped the Babylonians until their time came. No one said the healing was permanent.

You argue that my interpretation which has the servant render the many righteous – as a future prophecy, contradicts my interpretation which has the servant’s healing of the nation to be past. I would urge you to pay attention to the words of the prophet. The healing is described as something that happened in the past (nirpah) while the servant rendering the many righteous is presented as a future prediction (yatzdik).

You created a new category when you decided that the servant had to be sinless on the basis of your symbolic interpretation of the requirement that the animal guilt offering be free of physical blemish. I responded that the servant being human and not animal has no such requirement. I presented an example from the guilt offering of the Philistines.

You respond that the requirement for the Philistines would be different than the requirements for Israel. It seems that you forgot another Scriptural passage – Leviticus 22:25 – which explicitly applies the requirements of presenting non-blemished animals for the Gentiles as well as the Israelites. – By the way – do you believe the servant only suffers for Israel – or do you believe he suffers for all of mankind?

You discount my interpretation which has the servant guilty of his own sins – because then the assessment of his enemies would have been accurate – he was suffering for his own sins, while the prophet makes it clear that he was suffering for the sins of others.

You have misunderstood the thrust of Isaiah 53. Those who had denigrated the servant had been looking at the fact that the servant is the only one suffering as an indication that they themselves are more righteous then the servant – or that the servant is more evil than themselves (I see this fulfilled in the consistent Christian assertion that the holocaust “proves” that Israel’s rejection of Jesus is the greatest sin.) When the servant is vindicated – they will see that he had been bearing the burden for everybody – as described in Psalm 88, and that actually the servant had been the one who was fulfilling God’s mission on earth for the benefit of all mankind.

When that great day comes – and everyone sees that God alone is King – then those who trusted in Him will be vindicated to the eyes of all the nations who placed their trust in other entities. Everything will pale into insignificance when the nations realize how the worship that they considered the highest virtue – was actually the greatest abomination before God. All of Israel’s sins are between her and God. As for the nations – they will call Israel “the righteous nation” – and they will realize that Israel’s loyalty to God was the most precious thing that God had on this earth (26:2). They will realize that God’s purpose here on earth was accomplished through those loyal to Him – and that those who hoped to God bore the burden for everyone else. I imagine also – that when God’s glory is revealed and the mask of confusion is removed from the face of the nations – then Christians will realize that nations who revere books that slander their theological opponents have something to learn from a nation that reveres a book that highlights their own faults (Zechariah 8:23).

I look forward to your response.

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 | 28 Comments

Heart of a Relationship

Posted on January 28, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Heart of a Relationship

Christians contend that Jesus was a manifestation of God. They compare Jesus to the fire of the burning bush that Moses saw at Horeb (Exodus 3:4), to the pillar of cloud that led the Israelites in the wilderness (Exodus 13:21), and to the Angel of the Lord that appears throughout the Jewish Scriptures (Exodus 23:20; Judges 6:12; Isaiah 63:9).

 

This argument is rooted in a misunderstanding of the relationship that the Jewish people share with God. The relationship between God and Israel includes many activities that are ancillary to the essence of the relationship. The essence of the relationship is God’s love for Israel and Israel’s love and reverence for God. As expressions of His love, God guides His people, He speaks to their prophets, and he protects them from their enemies. As expressions of Israel’s heart for God we offer sacrifices, we build a Temple and we follow His Law. All of these activities are only part of the relationship inasmuch as they express the heart of one party to the other. If you remove the heart from these activities, they remain empty husks.

 

All of the manifestations of God that are found in Scripture relate to the ancillary aspects of the relationship. God showed His people that He chose Solomon’s Temple with a cloud of glory (1Kings 8:10), God accepted Elijah’s sacrifice with a fire from Heaven (1Kings 18:38), and God spoke to Abraham through the agency of an angel (Genesis 22:15). These have no impact on the essence of our relationship with God; namely, the love of our heart.

 

When God came to teach His people about the essence of our relationship with Him, they saw no image. God emphasized this point when He reminded His people of this covenantal encounter (Deuteronomy 4:15). The Sinai encounter was the definitive teaching about the heart of our relationship with God. And in this critical context the Scriptures emphasize that there was no manifestation at all.

 

Christianity’s claim for Jesus is a claim about the essence of the relationship. Christianity demands a love and a reverence for the person portrayed in the pages of the Christian Scriptures. This is not telling us at which location to bring our sacrifices, it is not guiding our travel and it is not merely bringing us a message. This is telling us where to direct our hearts. It is a teaching that attempts to place a finite existence in the essence of our relationship with God. This is idolatry.

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 The Ultimate Truth | 14 Comments

Respect for the Process

Posted on January 27, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Respect for the Process

Christians and Moslems make strong claims about their respective faiths. They both believe that people who do not subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity or Islam will suffer eternally. They do not hesitate to share this belief with people outside of their faith.

With a love for humanity in their hearts, and I do not say this sarcastically, the missionaries of Islam and Christianity attempt to save as many people as possible from the fires of hell. If the fear of hellfire will motivate a prospective convert to join the community of believers, then why should this fear not be harnessed for the cause?

Let us shift our focus to the prospective convert. We are obviously talking about an individual who has not believed in the religion of the missionary and is now listening to the arguments presented on behalf of this belief that is new to him or her. This individual had a worldview that did not include the theology of the new religion. And this worldview is being challenged.

Let us consider that challenge.

Both Christianity and Islam claim that the truths of their respective religions are very clear. According to the Moslem, the “truth” of the Koran is self-evident. And according to the Christian, the Messianic claims of Jesus are “confirmed” by the prophets of the Jewish Scriptures. Both religions claim that those who cannot see the respective truths of their religions after having considered the “necessary evidence” must have a proclivity for evil. Why else would one resist the “obvious” truth in all of its glory?

This is the challenging thought process of the confused individual. Here I have “evidence” to a faith that I never believed in. I may see some merit to the argument, I may even see much merit to the argument, but I am not ready to make a conclusive decision. Does this mean that I am evil? According to my new-found friend, that is exactly what my indecision means. He may not spell it out in so many words, but that is the underlying message.

This is where the hellfire enters the scene. The missionary “helpfully” reminds the prospective convert that no one is guaranteed another day of life. Who knows what can happen tomorrow? Where do you want to go for eternity?

This is the “one two” punch of Christian and Islamic missionaries. “One” is the insinuation that if you don’t see the “truth” of their argument than you have just demonstrated your inclination for evil. And “two” is the fear of hell.

The employment of this strategy is a demonstration of disrespect for the human sensitivity for truth. If these missionaries would truly believe that an honest quest for truth would lead to their religion then they would encourage just that; an honest quest for truth. An honest quest for truth is not pressured for time and an honest quest for truth needs to avoid the emotions of fear and guilt. An honest quest for truth will patiently amass as much evidence until an honest decision can be calmly made.

The God of Truth does not fear questions, and the God of Truth will not condemn people for being honest. While you search and as you ask honest questions you can be assured of the love of the God of Truth.

Those who try to get you to make a decision on the basis of guilt or fear do not respect the honest process of questioning and searching. You may well wonder how it is that they arrived at the conclusions that they claim to believe in. After all, if they do not respect your right to ask honest questions why would you think that they respect their own right to ask such questions? And if they are using fear and guilt to earn converts you may rightly suspect that they are not employed by the God of Truth.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/anchor/

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 | 17 Comments