Fourth Response to Gil Torres

Posted on November 21, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Dear Gil

In your previous comment you wrote twice that I was  mistaken concerning your intention – in this most recent comment you insist that  I didn’t misunderstand you but rather that you believe that I understood – can  you please explain your intentions more clearly? Was I mistaken or did I  understand?

You didn’t answer my question as to how you came to the  conclusion that Jesus was divine – can you please explain how you came to this  conclusion?

You did seem to supply an answer as to how you know that  Scripture is authoritative – but I didn’t understand it – can you please  clarify?

What is your point with the question about Adam and  Eve’s worship? (Incidentally I don’t find the question “troublesome” at all.)  Can you please spell it out more clearly?

Blessings and peace

Yisroel

Posted in Correspondence | 8 Comments

Third Response to Gil Torres

Posted on November 20, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Third Response to Gil Torres

Dear Gil

So it seems I have been misunderstanding your points.  This being the case can you please clarify your beliefs for me?

I understand that you believe that Jesus claimed to be  divine and that he was telling the truth when he made that claim (did I  misunderstand you here as well?).

How did you arrive at this belief? On what basis are  people in general expected to arrive at the same conclusion that you  did?

You state that you believe that Scripture is “the  authoritative revelation of the will of God”.

How did you come to this conclusion? How did you  conclude that the books that you find in the Scriptural canon truly belong  there?

I understand that you might think that these questions  are not relevant to the discussion at hand. In case I understood you correctly – I strongly disagree. The method  that God set in place to teach us that that Scripture is authoritative and that  these books rightly belong in the canon of Scripture were also used by God to  teach us other truths – and these truths provide the true context for  Scripture.

Looking forward to your response

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 | 7 Comments

Isaiah 42:8

Posted on November 19, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Isaiah 42:8

“I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”

Name:

a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing

 

Another:

different or distinct from the one first considered

Posted in Scripture, The Ultimate Truth | 18 Comments

Closing Arguments

Posted on November 18, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Closing Arguments – Excerpt From Critique of Volume 5

72. Objection 6.18

 

Brown concludes his five volume series with an appeal to his readers to put their faith in Jesus. I will conclude my critique of this series with an appeal to my readers to put their faith in God, and in God alone.

 

I find it interesting that Brown chose to place his objections against the Oral Law as the “closing argument” in his five volume series. The entire debate about the Oral Law is not very relevant to the controversy between Judaism and Christianity. The Karaite Jews, who do not accept the Oral Law, are among the most vehement critics of Christianity. On the other hand, we find Christians that see no need to repudiate the Oral Law in order to maintain their belief in Jesus. It seems however that Brown considers the discussion about the Oral Law to be central to the divide between Judaism and Christianity. Protestant Christianity takes prides in her claim that her theology is based on the word of God, in other words, on the Scripture (both Jewish and Christian) and on the Scripture alone. From the standpoint of the Protestant Christian, the Jewish acceptance of the Oral Law is a fatal flaw in the faith structure of Judaism. The Protestant challenges the Jew: “How can you rely on the words of men?” The Protestant looks to his own faith and is satisfied that it is based on the words of God.

 

But is this truly so?

 

When we examine the matter just a bit beyond the superficial, it becomes clear that it is Protestant Christianity who relies on the words of men, while Judaism leans on the words of God.

 

Did you ever notice that NOT ONE of the core doctrines of Protestant Christianity are directly spelled put in the Jewish Scripture? The Protestant cannot point to one verse that says: “put your faith in the Messiah in order to receive eternal salvation”. There is not one passage in Scripture that says that belief in the Messiah effects atonement, and there is not one passage in Scripture that encourages us to direct our devotion to a human incarnation of God.

 

EVERY ONE of the core doctrines of Judaism are EXPLICITLY and DIRECTLY spelled out in Scripture. God introduced Himself to our fathers and said: “I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt, you should have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2,3). God explicitly said that repentance is all that is necessary to wipe the slate of guilt clean (Ezekiel 33:16). And the Scriptures explicitly declare that the path to the restoration of Israel is through observance of the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 30:2).

 

Furthermore, the entire faith of Christianity stands on the reasoning of biased men. No one ever SAW Jesus die for anyone’s sins, and no one ever SAW that Jesus is the second person in a triune godhead. What happened was that a group of people, who were already completely devoted to Jesus, came up with these theories (Jesus’ atoning death, and his alleged divine nature) as an INTERPRETATION of various phenomena they saw or heard. But it was a TWO-STEP PROCESS. They first saw and heard the phenomena (Jesus’ life, death and alleged resurrection), they then processed these events in their human minds, and only then did they came up with these theological theories as an EXPLANATION to the events that they believed had happened. The fact is that the Christian’s faith must lean on these explanations concocted by finite human beings.

 

Contrast this with Judaism, where the two pillars of faith were actually witnessed by the entirety of Israel – no interpretation was necessary and nothing needed to be explained. All of Israel SAW that God is the power (Deuteronomy 4:35) and all of Israel HEARD God talking to Moses (Exodus 19:9). Jews does not need to rely on anyone’s interpretation for the foundations of their faith; their perception of God, and the knowledge that Moses is His prophet.

 

The Scriptures openly declare that the Jewish people are God’s firstborn son (Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 30:8) and His witnesses (Isaiah 43:10). It is because we trust God’s witnesses that we accept the canon of Jewish Scripture. We trust that God’s firstborn son is capable of sorting out the true prophets from the frauds and that they are capable of identifying God’s holy spirit when they see it manifest in a person’s life. The Jewish people testify to us about the authors of the books of the Jewish Bible – and all of them lived amongst the Jewish people – that these were Godly people who lived a life in line with God’s truth. These same witnesses testify about the authors of the Christian Scriptures – all of whom lived amongst the Jewish people as well – that they did not live a life that reflected God’s truth. If you want to trust God’s witness, go ahead and accept all of their testimony. If you choose to reject their testimony, please be consistent and reject all of it. The witness can be trustworthy or he can be a liar, but he can’t be both at the same time.

 

The underlying message of the Jewish Scripture is that God is the absolute Master of all creation. This core truth permeates every chapter and verse in the Jewish Scriptures. As God’s creations, we all owe all of our devotion to Him who gave us our hearts to begin with.

 

The calling of the Jewish people is to bear this truth and to carry it with them wherever they go. God established His testimony in Jacob through the events of the miracles and the Sinai revelation. These unparalleled evens planted the truth of God’s sovereignty into our hearts to the degree that even our children who stray far from the path of their ancestors, still cannot bring themselves to direct their devotion to a fellow creation of God.

 

I appeal to you, turn to your Creator. The One who provided for your every need can surely satisfy the yearning of your soul. The One who was lovingly maintaining your existence even while you sinned against Him, will surely forgive you if you just sincerely return to Him. Could there be a greater joy than the embrace of your Creator?

 

“Taste and see that God is good, happy is the man who takes shelter in Him” (Psalm 34:9).

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 | 110 Comments

Second Response to Gil Torres

Posted on November 18, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Second Response to Gil Torres

Dear Gil (I hope it’s OK that I am using your first name – if you have a problem with this, please let me know and I will stop. My first name is Yisroel.)

Thanks for taking the time to pen your respectful response. It is my prayer that this discussion leads the two of us only closer to the God of truth. I understand your desire to have our discussion limited to one topic and I agree with you that it is indeed wise for us to deal with one topic at a time. Still, you have made points about the incarnation (in your comments to me) and about the context of Scripture (in your comments to Annelise). I will therefore attempt to respond to both of these in this article (- these two issues are in fact related to each other.)

You spoke of the burning bush, the pillar of cloud and fire, the bronze serpent and the Ark of the Covenant. You seem to see in these some precedent to the Christian doctrine of the incarnation. Do you believe these were “incarnations” of God? Do you believe that the pillar of cloud was part of the trinity?

Did you ever ask yourself, if these narratives were put into Scripture for the sake of teaching us how to direct our worship, why then were they not presented as such? In other words; I am sure that you recognize that Deuteronomy 4 describes the Sinai experience as a teaching that was presented to Israel for the explicit purpose of teaching them towards who it is that they are to direct their worship. The text makes this abundantly clear. Why are these narratives (the bush, cloud, serpent and ark) not described by the text as teachings that have a bearing on the direction of worship?

Do you realize that the arguments that you are using to justify worship of Jesus could just as easily be used to justify the worship of another person (or animal, plant, rock, angel)?

How would you respond to someone who claims that he or she found a fourth person in the godhead? What would it take to convince you that there are more persons in the godhead than the three that you already believe in?

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/the-bush-the-cloud-and-genesis-18/

Before Jesus came to the earth the Jewish people already stood in a relationship with God. This relationship is compared to a marriage bond. What was that relationship based on? What was the reason that the Jew’s heart should have been devoted to God and to God alone? Did that relationship allow for the inclusion of other entities into the relationship?

It seems that you have misunderstood Annelise’s comments about the context of Scripture. I will try to articulate the point from another angle.

Do you believe that Israel is to discover their God only through a scholarly study of Scripture? Did God not provide a more direct teaching to Israel concerning this matter?

What method did God set in place so that we can realize that Scripture is truly His word?

One last question. Do you think that we disagree with each other because: A) One of us knows that Scripture supports the opposite position but the position is maintained out of rebelliousness towards God. B) One of us is spiritually blinded. C) One of us just happens to be reading Scripture carelessly. D) One of us is approaching Scripture with the wrong set of preconceived notions.

Blessings

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 | 14 Comments

Response to Gil Torres

Posted on November 15, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Response to Gil Torres

http://roundrockministry.blogspot.com/2012/06/christianity-unmasked.html#comment-form

It has come to my attention that one Gil Torres has taken exception to my article entitled “Christianity Unmasked”. In an article of his own Torres attempts to respond to a number of points that I raise in the aforementioned article. I would like to thank Mr. Torres for giving me the opportunity and the context to bring greater clarity to these important issues.

 

Torres labels the belief of Judaism in the Creator of heaven and earth and Israel’s loyalty to her God with the term: “unbelief”. The usage of such terminology distorts the essence of the discussion. By labeling the Jewish position that refuses to attribute divinity to Jesus as “unbelief”, the discussion is cast in the mold of a discussion as to whether we do believe or do not believe in the supposed divinity of Jesus. This is false. The discussion does not begin with the advent of Jesus. The discussion begins with the loyalty that God demanded before Jesus ever walked the earth. Did that loyalty allow for the direction of devotion towards a human? Or did the loyalty to God that existed before the birth of Jesus leave no room for devotion to a human. What was the foundation of our worship before the advent of Christianity and did that foundation change? Could that foundation change? This is the discussion.  https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/foundation-of-worship-iii/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/forms-of-communication/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/deuteronomy-173-and-the-bedrock-of-existence/

 

I have presented the argument that the literary tools that Matthew uses give Jesus the appearance of one who originates universal truths that were unheard of before Jesus uttered them. I pointed to the fact that Matthew uses the teaching of these universal truths, not so much as a guide for Godly behavior or as an exaltation of the principles of justice and charity but rather as an exaltation of the man Jesus.

 

Torres claims that my argument is weak and unnecessary. He goes on to say that he has asserted that Jesus taught very little that was new.

 

But Torres did not address the words of Matthew. Is the Sermon on the Mount not presented by Matthew as an exaltation of Jesus rather than an exaltation of the teachings he is propounding or is it not? What does Matthew mean with the expression: “you have heard that it was said to them of old time… but I say to you”? How has that expression been understood by the readers of Matthew’s words for the past two millennia?

 

Torres goes on to say: “When our convictions meet or exceed those of the originator have we not effectively made those truths our own so as to live and die by them?” If I understood him correctly he is implying that because Jesus’ convictions concerning the universal truths exceeded those of the originator of these truths then he could rightly call them his own.

 

The originator of the universal truths is the Creator of heaven and earth and no one can “exceed” the convictions of the originator of these truths.

 

In response to my assertion that the Church teaches that belief in Jesus generates a certain righteousness in man that is unavailable without devotion to Jesus, Torres writes: “IT IS NOT that non-Christians cannot do good. It is not that they cannot do righteousness. Furthermore, it is not that they fail to DO good or DO righteousness. Rather, it is that the good they do and the righteousness they do is according to a righteousness in accordance with their own standard.”

 

However you want to word it the upshot is that this doctrine asserts that Christians are intrinsically different than non-Christians in the righteousness that they do or do not do. This is a dangerous fallacy and has no support from the words of the prophets of God. My arguments in “Christianity Unmasked” remain unaffected by Torres’ rewording of this Christian teaching.

 

I wrote that Israel was “trustworthy enough to establish the credibility of her covenant with God, her prophets and her Messianic vision”.

 

Torres challenges me with the question: “What does “trustworthy enough to establish the credibility” mean? Your statement does bring to my remembrance the admonition of God to Israel that He had not chosen them because of piety, goodness or anything God deems favorable. Rather, Israel was chosen because of God’s was faithfulness to his promise to Abraham.”

 

My point about Israel’s trustworthiness is not a point about Israel’s piety; it is a point about the way God chose to operate. It was He who chose this nation as His witnesses (Isaiah 43:10). You could reject their testimony by throwing out their Scriptures or you can accept it and realize that devotion to Jesus is idolatry; but you can’t honestly do both at the same time.

 

In “Christianity Unmasked” I stated that: “According to the Jewish Bible, the deification of any inhabitant of God’s earth is idolatry, the greatest rebellion against God.”

 

Torres seems to agree with me this time; however, he attributes certain motivations to me thus deflecting the discussion.  Here are Torres’ words: “This is certainly a true statement. Yet, as true and noble as it may make us sound or make us appear it is not to say there is much or any degree of appreciation for one of your key points: Man was created in the image of God.” Torres goes on to “remind” me that Israel sinned against God by worshipping idols.

 

This will come as a shock to Torres but I did not write the statement in order to make myself “appear noble”. I am well aware of my own faults and the faults of my nation. I wrote that statement simply in order to encourage myself and others to avoid the sin of idolatry and to constantly grow stronger in our absolute devotion to God. As we progress in our devotion to God all other considerations such as Jesus, Buddha, the desire for honor and wealth all fade away into the background.

 

Torres goes on to assert that the alleged resurrection of Jesus confirmed his claims to deity.

 

The fact is that according to the Jewish Bible no miracle, no matter how spectacular, can confirm anyone’s claim for deity.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dr-brown-volume-4/

(Please see point # 5 in my critique of Dr. Brown’s volume 4 for an expanded treatment of this subject.)

 

In “Christianity Unmasked” I expose the tactic of the Church when it claims that the Messianic promise is exclusively reserved for those who are devoted to Jesus. Torres seems to be bothered by this argument. He responds with the following paragraph: “This statement struck me as peculiar until I read the rest of your article. A message of exclusivity does not play well in our present world. The world wants to be safe, as in professing trust in God in accordance with a particular tenet of faith, while being open to anything and everything. This is the way to absolve oneself both from the need to understand, teach and tougher still, to correct.”

 

Torres did not address my point at all. The Jewish prophets openly declare that the Messianic promise will unite all of mankind in the service of God (Zephaniah 3). Torres has no response to this. Instead he charges that the desire to avoid exclusivity is a way to absolve oneself of the need to understand, teach, and be corrected. Torres could not be more wrong. It is the Church’s teaching on exclusivity which has “absolved” them from the desire to understand and be corrected. When one is convinced that they already possess the exclusive ticket to heaven; why should they bother trying to understand? It is only when we acknowledge that God judges every man and woman according to their situation, their capabilities and their opportunities that we realize our responsibility before God to learn to be corrected and to forever grow.

 

Torres accuses me of distorting the message of the prophets: “You ply on the prophets and their message of hope to the world to employ your own message. Was the message of prophets like today’s new age, culture-speak of “focus(ing) on the positive”, “overcome(ing) psychological barriers,” of “Your relationship with your Creator . . . before you were born” or did they call it sin? Yes, in the midst of their proclamation of messianic hope and calling Israel back from her rebellion against God they called it sin. We know of the people’s response to the message of sin by the prophets and the fate faced by those servants of God.”

 

What did the prophets call sin? Did they teach, as does the Church, that man’s situation is hopeless? Not at all! They encouraged us to focus on the positive and on God’s all-encompassing goodness (Psalm 100:2-5). They encouraged us to overcome psychological barriers (Ezekiel 33:10-20). And they spoke of God’s love for us before we were born (Psalm 139:13-16; Job 10:8-12). The Church’s ongoing attempt to oppose these teachings must be unmasked.

 

Torres responds to my accusation that the Church stole Israel’s Scriptures from her with the assertion: “Your lament about how the church has stolen the scriptures, Jewish culture is unconvincing. It is unconvincing because Israel still has the scriptures and her culture. Whatever the church or anyone else might do with those scriptures and that culture can in no way be taken from Israel. Your mistaken view to equate the precepts and practices of the Catholic church as that of all disciples of Jesus is seriously flawed.”

 

Indeed; our Scriptures can never be truly stolen from us. But for long centuries the Church, both Protestant and Catholic, have claimed that it is their interpretation of our scriptures that is accurate as if they were the intended audience of those Scriptures. It seems that this exercise is still ongoing.

 

As long as people are still being directed away from the God of truth by the teachings of the Church it will be the duty of God’s witnesses to unmask their efforts.

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 | 31 Comments

Foundation of Worship III

Posted on November 14, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Foundation of Worship III

The discussion continues. Until the day that the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth like the waters cover the see, and beyond, more clarity can be gained by discussing and trying to arrive at a deeper understanding of our worship of God. May it be His will that these puny discussions lead us just a bit closer to that joyous day.

In this article we will attempt to address two questions that were presented on the heels of the previous articles:

1)      On what basis can I make the accusation that just because Christianity asserts that one man (Jesus) is “not created” that this is a denial of every man’s status of “created being”? Perhaps the case of Jesus is simply an “exception to the rule”?

2)      How does the argument that everything between heaven and earth must inherently owe their devotion to God apply to the inner soul/spirit of man? Finite, material articles are certainly limited in their existence and must be creations of the One God who is above and beyond all of nature. But how does this apply to the intangible and transcendent spirit within man? Perhaps Jesus was created in body and even in the outer aspects of his soul/persona, but maybe his inner soul/spirit could have been divine?

These questions go back to the foundation of worship.

The fact that we owe worship to God is not a happenstance; an aspect of life that is peripheral to our identity. Our debt of devotion to God is at the root of our very existence. Existence in God’s world means owing devotion to God. This applies to every aspect of our existence no matter how mysterious and intangible it is. If it exists in God’s world it owes devotion to God.

If I take one man and say: this one is an exception to the rule, then I have turned devotion to God into something that is merely peripheral to our existence. If one man can be an exception to the rule of owing devotion to God then existing in God’s world is not inherently tied into our debt of devotion. If one man can exist in God’s world and demand devotion himself, then there is no way that we can say that the debt of devotion that we owe towards God is intrinsic to our existence.

Just to elucidate. There are certain qualities that are integral to the article or activity in which they are displayed while other qualities are merely peripheral. The concept of movement is integral to the definition of transportation. If there is no movement then there is no transportation. The quality of movement is inherent in the existence of transportation and transportation cannot be imagined without movement. The combustion engine is not an inherent aspect of transportation. Transportation can be accomplished without a combustion engine. The combustion engine is only a peripheral aspect of transportation.

The quality of “owing worship to God” is a quality that is inherent to mankind. If one claims that there is one man who does not possess this quality then this claim has denied the intrinsic nature of our debt of worship to God.

I hope this shed some light on the first question.

Now we approach the second question. How do all of these arguments about man’s dependence upon God apply to the intangible, inner, spirit of man? Can it not be imagined that one man, who was “created” in body and in every outer aspect of his character, still be “Creator” in his mysterious inner spirit?

The answer is: “no”, and I will try to explain.

The short response to this argument is that the very fact that the possibility exists of Jesus not being “Creator” in any way tells us that worship of him is not equal to worship of the Creator. Or to state it in the reverse; the very fact that worship of the Creator is entirely possible without worship of Jesus tells us that worship of Jesus is not worship of the Creator.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/another-mathematical-problem/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/isaiah-222/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/knock-knock/

The longer response simply spells out the shorter response with some more words.

Libraries of books have been written in the Christian attempt to explain the trinity. The focus of these books is the mystery of a human nature somehow integrated with the divine. These Church theologians spend their time talking about Jesus, and his supposed divine nature. It is very difficult to argue with these theologians on their own grounds because they begin and end these discussions with the argument that this is all a mystery that can never be fully understood.

I will not talk about Jesus or about the mystery of the trinity. Instead I will talk about the concept of worship, an activity that is familiar and practical.

All Church theologians acknowledge that before Jesus walked the earth it would have been entirely inappropriate to direct devotion towards any man. All Church theologians would also acknowledge that before Jesus walked the earth if one wanted to direct devotion towards the Creator of heaven and earth all that was necessary was to direct devotion towards the Creator of heaven and earth.

According to Church theology these simple facts changed with the advent of Jesus. According to these doctors of theology once Jesus appeared on the scene it is indeed appropriate to direct devotion towards this Jesus, who for all intents and purposes appeared as a man. Furthermore, these Church doctors assert that to withhold devotion from Jesus is somehow a denial or a rejection of worship of the Creator of heaven and earth.

In other words: before Jesus came on the scene if one were to somehow include or combine worship of a man together with the worship of God it would be idolatrous, while after the advent of Jesus it is inappropriate to exclude the worship of Jesus from worship of God.

Christianity insists that with the advent of Jesus something changed. Not in the mystery realm of the heavenly spheres but right here on earth, in the hearts and minds of the worshippers of God.

What brought about this cosmic change? According to the teachings of Christianity this change was brought about by the activities and qualities displayed in the setting of a human body.

The question is: how could anything change? On what basis did we owe our devotion to God before Jesus came along? Was there anything lacking in the foundational root of our worship? Was not every fiber of our existence already subject to the Master of heaven and earth? What activities or qualities manifested within the setting of a human being have the power to draw our devotion towards him? What activities or qualities manifest within the setting of a human being have the power to change the status of our worship of God and render it incomplete?

God was Master of heaven and earth before Jesus appeared on the scene and as such we owed Him every bit of devotion. Nothing could be added to God’s mastery of heaven and earth and nothing could be subtracted from it.

No theory, no matter how sophisticated or refined, can change the elemental truth that all of existence owes all of its devotion to the One who is above and beyond existence as we know it.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/leviticus-1923-jeremiah-1011/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/why-jews-dont-believe-in-the-trinity/

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/acknowledgment-and-denial/

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 Righteous Gentile, The Ultimate Truth | 34 Comments

Foundation of Worship II

Posted on November 13, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Foundation of Worship II

The Jewish scriptures together with the sense of justice that God breathed into each one of us makes it clear that the foundation of our worship is the fact that we are completely dependent upon our Creator who is the Author of all existence.

Once this fact is established, it becomes obvious why the Christian claim for the incarnation of Jesus is actually an attempt to redefine the very basis of worship. The scenario proposed by the theology of Christianity, in which Creator takes on the form of created – and demands worship in that form – is in effect claiming that worship is not rooted in our dependence upon the Author of all existence. “Creator”, by definition means the one to whom worship is due, while “created” means the one who owes the worship. By saying that Creator became created that is like saying that the One to whom worship is due became one who owes worship and has no right to demand the devotion that is owed to Creator alone – unless we redefine worship.

There are still some details that require some clarification.

Some Christians seem to be confused by the term “created” as applied to Jesus. The Nicene Creed asserts that Jesus was not “created”. Since, according to these theologians, Jesus was not created, he could then still rightly demand worship.

What these theologians have done is that they have redefined the term “created”.

No-one saw God create the world. What we do see is a finished world which could not have created itself. The very fact that we exist in the form that we do, namely as a dependent existence, testifies to every human conscience that we were created – all of us and everything that exists between heaven and earth. Furthermore, the testimony of Israel concerning the miracles of the exodus and the Sinai revelation confirm this truth; that the Master and Creator of all of nature is the One who exists above and beyond all of the limitations of nature.

Jesus was a man; to put it in the terms of Christian theology – he was one hundred percent human. That is what his disciples saw and that is what is described in the writings of the Christian Scriptures. To take one human and deny that the status of “created” applies to him is in effect to deny all of nature its status as “created”. It is a rejection of the testimony of our conscience together with a rejection of the testimony of Israel.

Another detail that could use some clarification is presented as a question in the comment section of the previous post. If I understood the question correctly it runs roughly as follows: Of-course we owe our devotion to God because He created us, but isn’t it also true that we owe our devotion to Him because He is supremely holy? Because He is supremely righteous and merciful? Aren’t these sentiments also a part of our worship?

The point here is; that while God cannot imbue a created being with the quality of Creator because that would be a contradiction in terms, but can’t He present these qualities of Himself in a context where the quality of “Creator” is not present? In other words, while Jesus could not have been an embodiment of Creator but perhaps he was an embodiment of God’s holiness – without becoming “created” or “Creator”.

The first response to this question would be the point articulated above – the very fact that Jesus existed in God’s world tells us that he was “created’ and not “Creator” and not “neither Creator nor created”. The very fact that Jesus breathed God’s air tells us that he was one who owes all worship and cannot rightly demand worship that is due to the Author of his existence.

But there is yet another concept that needs to be articulated.

The qualities of God are inseparable. God is the Ultimate Merciful One precisely because He is the Creator. He is supremely holy because He stands outside of nature and He is completely righteous because He is an independent existence.

As dependent beings all of us who exist between heaven and earth can only share the blessings that God showered upon us – we can’t create new blessings. Our kindness is only a relative term when seen against the backdrop of God’s mercy. God’s mercy is limitless because He is limitless.

Holiness is the separation from all pettiness and self-interest. Only the One who intrinsically needs nothing can truly be separate from all self-interest. Perfect righteousness is only possible by the One who brought every detail into existence and who has intimate knowledge of every action and thought that ever existed and that will ever exist – together with the ability to deal with every detail with unlimited power. It is only the Creator of all who constantly sustains all that can be called intrinsically righteous.

I will take the liberty of quoting from “The Elephant and the Suit” to close this article.

“The Jewish people are married to their Creator. They pledged their hearts towards the Maker of heaven and earth, and promised Him that they will not allow their hearts to be led astray by any of His subjects. We bask in the shine of God’s holy radiance. We are overwhelmed by the truth of God’s absolute reality, by His absolute Mastery over everything in heaven and earth, by the love God demonstrated in creating us, and by the tenderness of His holy embrace we sense in the benevolence of every facet of our own existence and in the existence of every fellow inhabitant of heaven and earth. What does the life and death of a mortal inhabitant of God’s earth have to offer to us? How meaningless are the activities of flesh and blood when contrasted with the all-encompassing love and truth of the Master of all?”

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/The-Elephant-and-the-suit.pdf

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/isaiah-44/

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 Righteous Gentile, The Ultimate Truth | 157 Comments

Foundation of Worship

Posted on November 12, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Foundation of Worship

In my article “Supplement to Responding to an Atheist” I made a point that the foundation of our worship is the fact that we are created by God and that He is our Creator.

I have since been asked to provide the source for this teaching. How do I know that this truth is the root of our worship? I will allow Annelise to put her question into words:

“… you put a lot of emphasis on the idea that all things in creation owe worship to our Creator, because He made us and therefore we’re His subjects. Do you think that is the main reason why we worship God? Don’t the scriptures show that we worship Him also because of His goodness and holiness and beauty? And that Israel owes Him worship because He saved you and you entered into a covenant with Him only? I think you’re right, but I would value hearing more clearly from Tanach what it is about being created that makes us owe both love and submission, and what makes this the single definitional concept of humility and worship.

Also, apart from the revelation to Judaism, can a person know these things?”

The implication here is that if the basis for our worship of God would be some other quality aside from the definition of God as Creator then perhaps that quality could be shared with a created being. For example: if the basis for our worship of God is His holiness or His beauty then perhaps God could impute these qualities to one of His creations to the degree that they would then be deserving of worship.

In response I would say that even if it were true that the foundation of our worship of God is His holiness and beauty it would still be impossible for God to impute so much holiness and beauty to one of His creations so as to render them worthy of worship. Because no matter how much holiness and beauty this creation will receive the creation can never be the author of the holiness and the beauty. A created being is always a recipient and is never a true originator. The Creator remains the only originator of all holiness, goodness, righteousness and beauty.

Still and all, the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that our worship of God is rooted in the fact that He created us and that He is the One who is constantly sustaining our existence. The Scriptures also make it clear that a Gentile could and should know this truth independent of the testimony of Israel.

I will provide a list of Scriptural references that bear directly on this discussion. Some of these verses simply describe God as the Creator of heaven and earth clearly implying that everything within heaven and earth are but His creations. Some of these passages teach that the purpose of the exodus was to teach Israel that God is the only power, thus when Israel is encouraged to worship the God who took them out of slavery, they are to understand that this is the One who is above and beyond all of nature (Deuteronomy 4:35). Other verses are more explicit; they contrast worship of idols against worship of God, emphasizing that God is the One Creator.

Before we get to the list of Scriptural references let us focus on two passages; Jeremiah 10:11 and Daniel 5:23. Both of these passages address Gentiles and both of these passages speak of God as the Master. In Jeremiah the idols are described as “gods who did not create heaven and earth”, while in Daniel, God is described as the One who holds your (Belshazzar’s) breath in His hand. These two passages present God’s mastery of the world and/or of man as the reason that worship ought to be directed to Him and not elsewhere. From these passages we can conclude that the Author of Scripture saw this concept as something that all men are expected to realize.

The basis for this knowledge is rooted in the elemental concept of justice that is shared by all mankind. Justice dictates that we should not give to one that which belongs to another. Worship is giving; the giving of oneself to the object of devotion. The first question that justice demands that we ask ourselves is: who do we owe the pleasure of existence to? Who do we belong to? Before trying to find something beautiful and holy so that we can give ourselves over to that entity we need to ask ourselves: who is it that possesses our heart to begin with?

The following Scriptural passages provide guidance for our worship. The study of these passages is well worth the effort – it is what life is all about. 

Genesis 1:1, 2:1-3, 14:19,20,22, 18:14, 21:33, 24:3, Exodus 4:11, 7:17, 8:6,18, 9:14,15,16,29, 10:2, 14:4,18, 15:11,18, 18:11, 20:2,11,19, 23:13, 29:46, 34:14, Leviticus 11:45, 19:36, 25:23,38, 26:13,45, Numbers 15:41, Deuteronomy 4:9-24, 31-39, 5:6,7,15, 6:4,12,13,14,21, 7:9,18,19,21, 8:2,3,4,14-18, 9:3, 10:14,17,18,21,22, 11:2-7, 13:3,6,7,11,14, 17:3, 20:1, 26:8, 29:1,2,4,5, 32:6,39,40, 33:26,27, Joshua 2:11, 3:11, 4:24, 24:17,18, 1Samuel 2:2,3,6,10, 10:18, 12:6, 2Samuel 7:22, 22:32, 1Kings 8:23,27,60, 2Kings 19:15, Jeremiah 2:6, 5:22,24, 10:6-16, 14:22, 23:24, 27:5, 31:34, 32:17-21,27, 51:15-19, Isaiah 40:12-26,28, 41:4, 42:5, 43:10-13, 44:6-8,24, 45:5-7,12,18-23, 46:5,9,10, 48:13, 51:15, 66:1, Hosea 13:4, Amos 4:13, 5:8, 9:5,6, Jonah 1:9, Nahum 1:2-4, Zechariah 12:1, Psalm 8:4, 10:16, 11:4, 18:32, 19:1-7, 24:1,2, 29:10, 33:6-11, 65:7-14, 66:6-9, 68:8,9, 71:19, 74:12-17, 78:12-16,42-55, 81:11, 83:19, 86:8-10, 89:6-14, 95:1-7, 96:4,5, 100:3, 102:26, 104:1-35, 113:4,5, 114:7,8, 115:3-11, 119:73,89-91, 121:2, 124:8, 134:3, 135:5-21, 136:1-26, 139:5-16, 145:9,14-16, 146:1-10, 147:1-20, 148:1-14, 149:2, Job 4:17, 5:9,10, 9:2-12, 10:8-12, 12:9,10,13-25, 25:1-6, 26:6-14, 28:23-28, 34:13, 35:10, 36:22,23,26-37:24, 38:1-42:6, Proverbs 3:19,20, Ecclesiastes 3:11,14, Daniel 2:20-22, 3:33, 4:31,32,34, 5:23, 6:27,28, 9:15, Ezra 1:2, 5:11, Nehemiah 9:6, 1Chronicles 16:25,26, 17:20, 29:10-12,14-16, 2Chronicles 2:5, 6:14,18, 20:6, 36:23,

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 Righteous Gentile, The Ultimate Truth | 11 Comments

Supplement to Responding to an Atheist

Posted on November 7, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Supplement to Responding to an Atheist (and to a Christian)

The following question was posed in the context of my article “Responding to an Atheist”. This question articulates something that weighs deeply on the hearts of many Christians. The Jewish testimony that lifts God above all of nature seems to push God far away. The Christian philosophy which has God humble Himself and participate in the experience of His creations makes God so much more accessible and loving.

Here then is the question: “…what is wrong with the Christian belief that God might humble Himself and be known as part of creation, even though He still deserves our worship… and even more so because of such a gift?”

Annelise puts the question in context: “I understand that there’s no way within Judaism of testing that someone/something that seems like part of nature actually is an incarnation of God and deserves our worship. But I’ve never understood the idea that categorically God could not do this; that He *could not* make His person known in a human person, who had just a breath of air in his nostrils, if that were in His wisdom and kindness.”

In other words; it would be one thing for Judaism to say that we are not satisfied with evidence presented to “prove” that Jesus is this “incarnation” of God, but Judaism goes further than that. Judaism asserts that it cannot be. It is impossible.

What is the basis for this assertion? How can Jews be confident that God cannot humble Himself in this way?

As a member of the witness nation I see it as my duty to respond to this question and I pray that my words add clarity to the matter and not confusion.

There are different types of opposites in this world. We have light and dark, tall and short as well as many others. We can imagine a compromise between most of these opposites. You can have a room that is only partially illuminated and that would be seen as a compromise between light and dark. You can have something that is tall when compared to an average person but would be considered short when compared to a mountain. This then could be a “compromise” between tall and short.

The qualities of truth and falsehood are more difficult to reconcile with each other. Generally we say that a given statement is either true or false. However we could still imagine compromise in a situation where a statement is true in one context but false in another. That would be good and fine for a statement that only possesses truth or falsehood as descriptive qualities. But the raw concepts of truth and falsehood can never be reconciled. By definition truth is not falsehood and falsehood is not truth. We can then say that truth and falsehood are “more opposite” than light and dark.

Truth and falsehood are still not the most opposite entities. Truth is not truth because falsehood is falsehood. If falsehood would be impossible to conceive of truth would still be truth (although in a world where falsehood does not exist we would not appreciate truth as truth).

In the context of worship of the divine the titles Master and subject are more opposite than truth and falsehood. It is not that the word “master” is an intrinsic opposite of “subject” in a way that no compromise is possible. A person can be a master of one person and a subject of another – but that compromise can only take place outside of the context of worship of the divine.

In the context of worship of the divine the words “Master” and “subject” carry a different connotation. The fact that God is the Master, the Creator of all existence, the One who constantly sustains all life and the fact that His creation is subject and completely dependent upon Him for its very existence every second – these facts form the heart of worship. If there would only be a Master and no subjects then there would be no worship. And by definition subjects cannot exist without a Master.

The entire concept of worship is rooted in the recognition that all are subject to, dependent upon and completely helpless before the Master. By definition the subject is the one FROM whom all worship is due and by definition the Master is the One TO whom all worship is due.

In the context of worship of the divine there can be no compromise between Master and subject.

After everything is said and done, Judaism does affirm that God made Himself known within creation. He gave us His Law, which reveals His will as it pertains to every aspect of creation. He chose a place within creation; namely Jerusalem; that He calls: “His home”. He formed a covenant with a living nation and He breathed His truth into the nostrils of every human being. God made Himself accessible to us so that we can have a deep and meaningful relationship with Him. But the foundation of the relationship will always remain that as His subjects we owe all worship to Him.

The devotion that Christianity demands towards Jesus is rooted in a lack of appreciation for the concept of divine worship. The testimony of Israel declares that everything that exists within the confines of nature, between heaven and earth, are completely subject to the One Master to whom all devotion is due. By pointing to one inhabitant of this earth and setting him up as an object of worship, Christianity is in effect blurring the lines between subject and Master – the most important definitions in the context of worship. By pointing to someone who shared our dependence on the One Master and exalting him as an object of devotion, Christianity is in effect denying that the dependence upon God that is intrinsic to our nature is the root of our worship.

The entire concept of worship of the divine is rooted in a deep appreciation of the definitions of “Master” and “subject”. The sincerity of the worship is directly related to the depth of appreciation of these two opposing concepts: “Master” and “subject”. Any attempt at blurring the lines between these two is a contradiction to the worship encouraged by the Jewish Bible. By establishing a theology that compromises between Master and subject the Church has set itself up against the worship of God.

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 Addressing Atheism, The Ultimate Truth | 10 Comments