Persuasion versus Education – Response to Dr. Brown

Posted on January 30, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Persuasion versus Education

–  Response to Dr. Brown

The winds of controversy that swirl around Rabbi S. Boteach’s new book; “Kosher Jesus” have managed to bring Dr. M. Brown into the Jewish melee. In a Huffington Post response to Boteach, Rabbi Y. Schochet intimated that Brown had been defeated in a public debate. Brown was quick to respond with two articles; one in the Townhall online magazine (http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/01/27/the_huffington_post_three_rabbis_and_me) and one on his Line of Fire blog (http://lineoffireblog.blogspot.com/). In these articles Brown takes issue with Schocet’s description of the debate. Brown then goes on to offer some of his own opinions about the intra-Jewish dispute over Boteach’s book.

In the process of correcting a false impression that someone may have picked up from Shochet’s article, Brown engages in his own dissemination of misinformation – unintentional to be sure, but misinformation nonetheless.

Brown presents the controversy surrounding Boteach’s book as if the rabbis who oppose the dissemination of the book are attempting to withhold information from their respective flocks. Brown writes: “I fully understand religious believers wanting to preserve the integrity of their own communities, and they certainly have no obligation to give exposure to dissenting views. On the other hand, it is healthiest when our beliefs can withstand scrutiny and criticism and challenge”.

The fact is that those who oppose Boteach’s book are not motivated by a desire to prevent “exposure to dissenting views”. Those who oppose the book do so on different grounds entirely, and it goes to the very soul of the ongoing conflict between Christian missionaries (such as Brown) and those in the Jewish community who oppose their efforts.

The core issue is: persuasion versus education. Both of these methods can be used to affect a change in the world-view of a target audience. But these are two different methods of going about the work of affecting this change.

Education puts facts on the table, facts and logical arguments. Education encourages the target audience to think for themselves, to sift through the relevant information and to arrive at their own conclusions.

Persuasion relies on the sad fact that most people will probably not go through the tedious process of sifting through all of the relevant information. Persuasion encourages people to bypass the process of education. By highlighting a piece of information, be it truth or fiction, or by emphasizing a specific argument, the persuader attempts to bring the target audience to a decision that is not based on all of the relevant information.

The venue of a public debate is a venue for persuasion. There is no way that the two participants in a debate can present all of the relevant information to their audience in the venue of a public debate. Furthermore, the style and demeanor of the contestants plays a role that often overshadows the logical arguments and the facts that were presented in the course of the debate. It is for this reason that counter-missionary organizations discourage public debates with missionaries. And for this same reason that it comes as no surprise that Christian missionaries favor the venue of the public debate.

The Jewish counter-missionary effort focuses on education. We encourage people to look beyond the superficial persuasions of the missionary and to consider the relevant facts so that they can arrive at their own educated decision.

In short, the conflict between the missionary and the Jewish community is a conflict between the method of persuasion favored by the missionary and the method of education favored by the Jewish community.

Boteach’s book plays right into the missionary strategy of using persuasion to obstruct education.

Allow me to explain.

The word “Jesus” represents the deification of a man – a concept that stands as the very antithesis of the covenant that the Jewish people share with God. For 2000 years Jews have insisted that the Christian exaltation of a man who walked God’s earth and breathed God’s air represents the very opposite of what it means to be a Jew. Jews were so convinced that this belief is wrong that they were proud to accept the position as the outcasts of society in order to maintain this belief – no matter the cost.

The Jewish understanding that acceptance of Jesus violates the essence of what it means to be a Jew has always been a serious impediment in the age-old missionary effort to convert the Jew. During the last century Christian missionaries developed a program of persuasion to overcome this impediment. They began redefining what it means to be a Jew. These missionaries began a propaganda campaign that attempts to persuade people that being a Jew and accepting Jesus is not the inherent contradiction that it actually is. Brown’s words in his Townhall article serve as a perfect example of this method of persuasion: “If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, believing in him does not constitute converting to another religion”.

Brown is attempting to redefine Judaism – not through education but through persuasion. Instead of looking to the Bible where God defines His unbreakable bond with the Jewish people with the words: “Unto you it was shown so that you know that the Lord is God – there is no other beside Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35 – a verse that Brown did not find space for in his 1500 page missionary work) – Brown provides his own, unscriptural definition to Judaism. According to Brown, Judaism means following the “Jewish Messiah”. According to the Bible, Judaism is a marriage-bond to the God who took our ancestors out of Egypt. Deifying the man who Brown refers to as the “Jewish Messiah” is the deepest violation of that marriage-bond imaginable.

A book written by an Orthodox rabbi, with the title; “Kosher Jesus”, plays right into the hands of the missionary effort to redefine Judaism. Although the contents of the book make a pathetic attempt to redefine “Jesus”, the name of the book, the cover of the book and the hoopla surrounding the book all serve to redefine Judaism.

Those who read the book will find that Boteach actually does dispense his duty as a member of God’s witness nation.  In the 25th chapter of his book Boteach writes: “Jews, including Jesus, have always found the deification of human beings to be utterly anathema to Judaism”. If Boteach would have put that sentence on the cover of his book and the words: “kosher Jesus” in chapter 25, he would have spared the Jewish community much heart-ache and at the same time would have spared the missionary community some undeserved joy. However, since Boteach chose to entitle the book with the words: “Kosher Jesus” the masters of persuasion will thank Boteach for doing their work for them.

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 Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 21 Comments

“Kosher Jesus” – A Book Review by Rabbi Eli Cohen

Posted on January 27, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

“Kosher Jesus” – A Book Review

In his new, highly controversial book, Kosher Jesus, Shmuley Boteach sets the stage by describing the strong overtures of Christian love towards Israel and the Jewish people.  Boteach views this development as a positive step in the Jewish – Christian relationship; however, Boteach points out, there is still a sticking point between Jews and Christians, and that is Jesus. [1]

Boteach’s book presents a solution [2] that he believes will allow both Jews and Christians to overcome the barrier that stands between them. [3]  Boteach proposes that instead of Jesus being the issue that divides us[4], we should allow him to serve as a bridge that unites us in the common interest of promoting Judeo – Christian values.[5]
Setting the bar in his introduction, Boteach boldly claims to know the “authentic story” of Jesus of Nazareth[6].  Virtually all historians and scholars agree that when trying to reconstruct the life of the “Historical Jesus” one is crippled by the lack of surviving evidence outside of the Gospels (records which Boteach himself disqualifies.)[7] This leads the reader to wonder how Boteach is going to make his case convincing. Continue reading →

Posted in Critique, General | 17 Comments

Written Debate with Dr Brown

Posted on January 23, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

In anticipation of Dr. Brown’s upcoming response to my last comment in this lengthy thread – I took the liberty of cutting and pasting the relevant posts. I attempt to keep the original numbering and even the original typos. This way, when Dr. Brown’s response does come – the readers can more fully appreciate it. In the meantime, please feel free to analyze and comment on this thread.

  1. Yisroel Blumenthal
    November      3rd, 2011 @ 10:44 pm

Dr. Brown challenges his caller to provide one reference in his 5 volumes where he misquotes Scripture – well Page 75 of volume 2 shows a serious misquote of Scripture Continue reading →

Posted in Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 14 Comments

Motivations – Jeremiah 2:11

Posted on January 15, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Motivations – Jeremiah 2:11

 

From the very inception of Christianity, Christians found it necessary to engage in the psychoanalysis of those who reject their claims. John’s Jesus gets the ball rolling in chapter 3 verses 19 thru 21 “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone that does evil hates the light and does not come to the light lest his works be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light so that his works may be made manifest that they have been wrought by God.”

 

John’s Jesus outdoes himself a few chapters later (8:44) where he explains that the Jews are children of the devil and it is this inherited evil nature that prevents them from loving the child of God (i.e. himself).

 

Throughout history, Christians have kept up the “study” of the Jewish “motivation” to reject Jesus. Even in today’s age of open communication, Christian theologians, apologists and clergymen offer their opinions into the Jewish motivation for their rejection of Jesus. These include the argument that it is the persecution of the Church that prevents Jews from “seeing the light”. The argument that postulates that the Jews are stricken with a special “spiritual blindness” is also quite popular. Others Christians move closer to John’s Jesus with theories that vilify the Jews, with a specific focus on the spiritual leadership of the Jewish people. These apologists argue that the spiritual leadership of the Jewish people rejected Jesus because their power-base as leaders would be threatened with the acceptance of Jesus. They take this accusation one step further with the slander that the spiritual leadership of the Jewish people consciously changed the synagogue liturgy and their commentaries of the Bible in order to sustain their rejection of Jesus.

 

Needless to say, the past 2000 years of history do not reflect positively on this Christians study of Jewish “motivation”. The upshot of this study was death and suffering for millions of people.

 

Let us step back and ask some basic questions. If you are going to pass judgment on someone’s motivations for taking a specific decision, most people would acknowledge that you must consider the following factors before rendering your verdict.

 

  1. You must be aware of the meaning and implications of the decision from the standpoint of the person you are judging.
  2. You must understand all of the arguments presented to justify the decision from the perspective of the person you are judging.
  3. In light of the injunction; “do unto others as you would have done unto yourself” – you should ask yourself; – How do I feel when people psychoanalyze my motivations?

 

If you are a Christian and you have already delivered your verdict as to why the Jewish people reject the man you consider to be divine – I will ask you the following questions.

 

  1. Do you realize the implications of the decision from the standpoint of a Jew? Do you realize that if Jesus was not who you believe he was, then the veneration that he demands is idolatrous? Do you realize that the heart of the Jew’s covenant with God demands that the Jew reject any worship that is not validated by the Sinai revelation? Do you realize that the relationship that the Jew shares with God does not allow for the veneration that Christianity demands for Jesus?
  2. Can you articulate the Jewish arguments that justify the decision to reject Jesus? Do you realize that there are several hundred passages in the Scriptures that you acknowledge to be God’s word that demand that the Jew reject the claims made about Jesus? Do you realize that the very same system that was used to validate the prophets of the Jewish Scripture clearly and unequivocally INVALIDATE the claims for Jesus?
  3. Did you ever ask yourself how it feels to be psychoanalyzed? Did you ever stop and consider the historical record of the psychoanalysis that you are engaging in?

 

In the book of Jeremiah (2:11), God pays a backhanded compliment to idol-worshipers who maintain loyalty to their idol. The prophet makes it clear that it is the quality of loyalty that keeps the respective idolatrous nations in line with their own deities. Is it so difficult for the Church to acknowledge that Israel’s rejection of Jesus is rooted in the same quality of loyalty? Is it so difficult to fathom that a nation that was called into a special relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth will not give her heart to an inhabitant of God’s earth?

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 | 98 Comments

Forms of Communication

Posted on January 12, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Forms of Communication

There are different methods that can be used to communicate ideas from person to another. Some of these modes of communication are more effective than others. Some forms of communication are more prone to error and failure than are other forms.

Speech is one mode of communication. The written word is another, similar, form of communication. A living demonstration of the concept that is being conveyed is yet another form of communication.

These forms of communication can be further subdivided and categorized in varying measures of efficiency. A direct statement is a more effective way of communicating than is a subtle hint. A statement worded in the format of a command packs a more powerful punch than does a narrative.

One who communicates through the written word has several tools at his or her disposal to empower the communication and to make it more effective and less error-prone. Repetition of the same concept several times and with different words is one method that an author can use to accentuate and to clarify a communication. Another literary technique that an author may use to highlight a particular concept is by having the storyline build up towards the intended message.

We can imagine that a wise communicator will carefully consider his or her options as to which form of communication to use and which level of effectiveness to choose for the intended delivery of a message.

Now, both Jews and Trinitarian Christians see themselves as recipients of conflicting messages from the same God. According to the Jewish people, directing veneration towards one who walked God’s earth and breathed His air is the deepest violation of our relationship with God. Trinitarian Christians counter with the claim that a relationship with God demands veneration of one who lived and breathed as we do.

It is obvious that these claims are mutually exclusive. Only one of these belief systems can be right. In other words – at least one of these two groups of people have misunderstood God’s message. There HAD to be some failure in communication between God and one of these two groups.

Let us examine each group’s respective claim that they are the intended recipients of an accurate message from God.

I will begin with the Christian. The Christian points to the Jewish Bible and contends that it is through this book that God communicates to mankind that when one comes along and claims to be an incarnation of the divine; that he is to be heeded and to be worshiped. No, not exactly anyone, but one who fulfills certain ambiguous prophecies.

Let us step back and gauge the method of communication that was used and its relative effectiveness together with its tendency for error.

Here we have a book that contains about 30,000 verses. Not one of the passages that the Christian points to as a support for this doctrine is presented as a direct teaching on the correct method of worship. Not one of the passages that the Christian points to as a support for this doctrine is presented as a command. Even according to the Christian interpretation, the doctrine of the trinity is not spelled out anywhere in the Scriptures in a clear and comprehensive manner. It must be pieced together from bits and pieces from all over the Scriptures.

How much room is there for error? Is this the way God communicates something that is important to Him?

Let us now turn to the Jewish claim. According to the Jewish people, God utilized several forms of communication in order to impart the foundational truth of Judaism – that there is but One God and that all worship should be directed to Him and that no worship be directed to any inhabitant of the earth.

God spoke directly to the nation. He introduced Himself to them and warned them against worshiping any other entity. This teaching was presented directly and in the form of a command. This commandment was accompanied by a live demonstration as described in Deuteronomy 4:36. God also utilized the written word to communicate this message. Throughout the Bible God repeats and emphasizes that we are not to worship anyone aside from the God that we know from the exodus experience. God used every literary tool to highlight this teaching. These passages are direct. They are comprehensive. They are presented as the climax of the exodus story (Exodus 20:2) and as the core of our covenant with God (Deuteronomy 4:31-35). This concept is presented as the climax of all history (Isaiah 40:5-8, Zechariah 14:9) and the preservation of this truth is presented as Israel’s calling before God (Isaiah 43:10).

How do these two claims compare? The Jewish claim relies on the most direct and effective methods of communication while the Christian claim leans on the decoding of a complicated, indirect message from a lengthy series of books. Is there a comparison?

But, the Christian responds, there is no contradiction between these two claims. The Christian contends that Jesus is “one and the same” with the God of Israel.

My question to the Christian is: How did you come into possession of this earth-shattering knowledge? How do you know that a man who lived and died is “one and the same” with the God of Israel?

The Christian’s response? – “I got this information from the Bible”. How did the Author of the Bible communicate this information to you? Was it direct? Was it comprehensive? Is it highlighted in anyway? What is the room for error in this method of communication?

To illustrate the absurdity of the Christian claim I present the following parable.

You are brought into a room. Not just any room, but the room from which the nuclear ICBM missiles are launched in case of war. You are told – See the buttons on that wall? DON’T PRESS ANY BUTTON!!!! You are presented a book of instructions. Throughout the book you find the words; “DON’T PRESS ANY BUTTON” repeated again and again. The general in charge of the facility takes you on a tour of the wiring panels behind the buttons and you are given to understand the serious consequences that will result with the pressing of any one of the buttons.

Then one of your fellow soldiers takes the instruction booklet and tries to demonstrate to you that the general in charge of the facility actually wants you to press one of the buttons and that if you don’t, you will be dishonorably discharged from the army. The basis of his claim is that he has found some inferences throughout the instruction book which seem to indicate that one of the buttons is wired differently than the rest of them.

Would you consider this claim with any level of seriousness? If the general wanted you to press a button, he could have made it so much clearer. Why would he so strongly emphasize the seriousness of NOT pressing any buttons? The whole story doesn’t begin to make sense.

In case you didn’t get the meaning of the parable – here it is. God told Israel – DON’T WORSHIP ANY ENTITY ASIDE FROM ME. He repeated this message and emphasized it in so many ways. Now the Christian theologian comes along and wants you to believe that God really does want you to worship an entity that you see as separate from God on the basis of the theologian’s inferences from the very book which emphasizes the prohibition against idolatry.

The claim doesn’t make sense. The communication of the one message is loud, clear and commanding while the communication of the other is so vague, disjointed and prone to error.

If you were the soldier in that room filled with buttons – what would you do?

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 Faith Structure, The Ultimate Truth | 47 Comments

Continuation of L. O. F. Conversation

Posted on January 11, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

On the November 3rd 2011 edition of Dr. Brown’s Line of Fire radio show blog http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/11/03/dr-brown-answers-the-rabbis-including-a-recent-video-by-rabbi-asher-meza/ – an interesting conversation developed. Dr. Brown had challenged a caller on his show to produce one misquotation of Scripture in his five volume series. I responded with what I felt were serious misquotations of Scripture in his books – and Dr. Brown defended his writings. The conversation moved on to a debate about the trinity and some other subjects. Dr. Brown felt that the conversation had moved too far from its original thread – so he asked that the conversation be taken elsewhere.

You have just arrived at “elsewhere” – Welcome! Feel free to comment!

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 Debate Forum | 288 Comments

Acknowledgment and Denial

Posted on January 4, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Acknowledgment and Denial

Christian theologians attempt to rationalize their assertion that a certain individual, who breathed God’s air and walked God’s earth, is somehow divine and worthy of worship. These theologians present an argument which posits that it was “necessary” for God to “become human”. These philosophers argue that God “needed to become human” so that we can better relate to Him. As finite human beings, it is certainly easier for us to develop and sustain a relationship with another finite human being than it is for us to live a relationship with a holy God that is above every finite definition.

The core line of reasoning of this argument is fallacious. By redefining God, it doesn’t make it easier to have a relationship with Him. The whole concept of living in a relationship with God means acknowledging that every iota of finite existence is completely subject to God and is only here as an expression of God’s love. It boils down to acknowledgment. Can I acknowledge that I, together with all of my fellow creations, are completely subject to our Creator? Or will I withhold that acknowledgment?

Taking one entity, who breathed God’s air and walked God’s earth and attributing deity to him, is the precise opposite of acknowledgment. It is denial. It is a denial that every last finite existence attests to the truth of the Creator just as a work of art testifies to the existence of an artist. It is a denial that the need to breath and the act of breathing proclaim that the breather is but a beneficiary of the One benevolent God.

Denial is the opposite of acknowledgment. Denial cannot make acknowledgment easier. The act of denying the sovereignty of God over one of His subjects leads us in the very opposite direction of developing a relationship with God.

Let us examine this issue from another angle. Let us take a man who might feel distant from God. Let us say that this person is confused, afraid, alone and discouraged. This person finds it difficult to reach out to a God who is above all existence – such a God seems so far from him! But to imagine a person, a human being just like himself, standing there right next to him, empathizing with him and encouraging him – is not difficult at all. It just takes a little imagination.

But is the true God really so far? If this man were to suddenly receive a delivery – the UPS man brought him a box – the return address – “God”! He hurriedly opens up the box and there is a beautiful gift from God – a gift that precisely fits his need of the moment. Do you think that this man would still feel alone and discouraged? Would he still feel that God is distant and far off? I don’t think so.

The fact is that this frightened man together with every man and woman who inhabits God’s earth is receiving beautiful and precious gifts from God every second! The beating of our hearts, is a gift from God. Our ability to think is a gift from God. Our breath is a gift from God. Our very existence is a gift from God. Each of these and many more are personal gifts from a loving God who knows us better than we know ourselves and who loves us more than we love ourselves.

The true God who holds our every breath in His hand (Daniel 5:23) is not far from us. There is nothing closer to us than the One who lovingly sustains every detail of our existence every second. Our problem is that we fail to acknowledge, to recognize that these are all expressions of His love and care. In order to develop a relationship with God we need to allow ourselves to acknowledge that our breath is not an intrinsic possession of ours. We need to allow ourselves to acknowledge that the fact of our existence is not an inherent truth but rather an expression of His love. We need to allow ourselves to admit that we are but beneficiaries of God’s constant care for us.

The Scriptures teach us that the practice of justice and kindness is, in and of itself, knowledge of God (Jeremiah 22:15,16). Justice means being sensitive to give to each entity what is coming to it. Kindness is the quality that appreciates giving and recoils from undeserved taking. Justice and kindness are the tools that God gave us in order that we could acknowledge His benevolence. When we look at our breath through the lens of kindness, we realize that with every breath we are the undeserved recipients of a priceless, personal gift. When we look at our existence through the lens of justice, we realize that we belong to God.

Justice and kindness are to a relationship with God what the sense of hearing is to music and what the sense of taste is to food. The sensitivity to justice and kindness are the tools that God gave us so that we can appreciate God’s constant embrace.

If we feel that God is far, we should turn to acknowledging God’s sovereignty over every facet of existence – not to denying it.

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 | 8 Comments

The Bush, The Cloud and Genesis 18

Posted on January 2, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

The Bush, the Cloud and Genesis 18  

 

Christians believe that Jesus, a man who lived and breathed like all other human beings, was in some mysterious way – divine. On the basis of this belief, Christians direct veneration and worship towards Jesus. They call this belief the “incarnation of the divine”.

 

Ever since Christians began promoting this belief, the Jewish people have identified it as idolatrous and have chosen to give their lives rather than direct worship to Jesus.

 

Christian apologists have presented many arguments in their attempt to justify their worship and their belief. All of these arguments are wasted on the Jew who is loyal to his or her nation’s covenant with God. The heart of the Jew’s covenant with God is the knowledge that God directly implanted into the hearts and the minds of His nation – that there is no entity deserving of worship aside from Him (Deuteronomy 4:35). This knowledge was bestowed upon the Jewish people before God gave them the Bible and it is in the context of this knowledge that the Bible is to be read. An argument that is based on the piecing together of a complex and mysterious theological structure from enigmatic passages scattered throughout a book that contains about 30,000 verses – cannot go against the direct teaching of God.

 

With this in mind, we will direct our focus to some of those passages that Christian theologians see as a support for the doctrine of the incarnation.

 

Christians point to the burning bush which Moses encountered at Horeb (Exodus 3:1-4). The Christian contends that if God spoke to Moses out of the fire in the bush, He can also speak to us out of the person of Jesus.

 

Another passage that Christians point to is Exodus 40:34, where the cloud covers the tabernacle and the glory of the Lord is said to have filled the tabernacle. The Christian argues that if God’s glory can be manifest in a cloud, why can it not be manifest in the person of Jesus?

 

These arguments ring hollow for several reasons, but in the space of this brief article, we will limit our focus to one argument.

 

The Christian does not believe that the relationship between Jesus and God is the same as the relationship between God and the burning bush or between God and the cloud. No Christian theologian ever maintained that there are five members in the trinity (- add the bush and the cloud to the trinity). The person of the bush and the person of the cloud are insignificant entities in our relationship with God. No one ever recorded an adoring description of the bush or the cloud. The bush and the cloud were used by God to convey certain messages and that is all that remains of these two entities – the messages that God conveyed through them. Christians do not see Jesus as a mere medium that was used to convey a message. The person of Jesus himself is exalted and venerated by Christianity. The books that describe Jesus’ human activities; his birth, his travels, his human struggles and his suffering and death stand at the center of the Christian’s worship of Jesus. These books have no parallel in the Jewish memory of the bush or the cloud, and the Christian veneration of the person of Jesus has no parallel in the Jewish Bible’s teachings on the bush and the cloud.

 

Another passage that Christians point to in support of the incarnation doctrine is Genesis 18, where Abraham hosted three men. Two of these men turn out to be angels (Genesis 19:1) but who was the third one? The text tells us that after the men went to Sodom, Abraham was still standing before the Lord (Genesis 18:22). Since the text tells us that only two of the men arrived in Sodom, these Christian concludes that the third man is the one before whom Abraham was still standing.

 

The widely held Jewish interpretation of this passage posits that four separate entities appeared to Abraham; God (in a prophetic vision) and three men. Throughout Scripture, visions of God are accompanied by the sighting of angels and this is but another example (Judges 6:12-23, Isaiah 6:1,2). When the two angels left, the third stayed behind while Abraham spoke with God. There is no contextual reason to assume that God and the third person are one and the same.

 

However, some Jewish commentators (Rashbam) explain that the third person was the Angel of the Lord who is commissioned to speak God’s words throughout the Scriptures. It is he that is called “Lord” in his capacity of bringing God’s word to Abraham. Christian theologians, on the other hand, argue that this person was God incarnate.

 

Before we determine which of these two positions is rooted in the Jewish Scriptures, we will point out that even according to the Christian interpretation (which is erroneous), this text cannot serve as a justification for the worship of Jesus. The Bible tells us nothing about this person aside from the words that he said and the message that he conveyed. The entire function of this entity was to convey a message and that is the only function the Bible assigns to him. The Christian concept of venerating the human activities of the one that they see as an incarnation of the divine has no parallel in the Jewish Scriptures.

 

But who was this person? The Bible provided us with an answer before we got to this chapter. In chapter 16 in this same book (16:7-13), Hagar meets the Angel of the Lord. In an uncharacteristic usage of Hebrew, the text emphasizes that it was the Angel of the Lord who spoke to Hagar. Three verses, one after another, all open with the words: “And the Angel of the Lord said to her” (16:9,10,11). Yet when Hagar speaks of her encounter with the Angel, she says that it was the Lord who spoke to her (16:13). It is clear that the Angel of the Lord is chosen to convey God’s words and that when one converses with this angel, he or she has conversed with God Himself – although they have only seen the angel.

 

We encounter this same angel in the book of Numbers. The text describes how the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes and he saw the Angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:31). The text makes it clear that the Lord and His Angel are two different entities. The Angel goes on to warn Balaam that he may only speak what he, the Angel, will tell him to speak (22:35). When Balaam actually receives the word that he is to pronounce, the text tells us that it was the “Lord” who met Balaam and placed the words in his mouth (23:16). But the text has already made clear that it was the angel who was commissioned by God to put the words into Balaam’s mouth. This passage gives us to understand that when one meets with the Angel of the Lord, it is described by the text as having met the Lord.

 

In the book of Exodus we are told that the Lord traveled before His people in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:21). Yet when the pillar of cloud moved from its position in front of the people to stand behind them to protect them from the pursuing Egyptians, the text tells us that it was the Angel of God who moved from before them to stand behind them. Again, we learn that when God acts through the agency of the Angel, the text will describe it as the Lord traveling before His people.

 

In light of all of these texts we can confidently state that the Jewish interpretation that it was the Angel of the Lord who Abraham saw as a man and not God Himself, is firmly rooted in the words of Scripture. The Christian interpretation, that insists that it was God Himself incarnated as a man, is without Scriptural foundation. There is not one passage in Scripture which Christians can point to with confidence and say that here God appeared as a physical human being.

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 | 173 Comments

Context and Kabbalah

Posted on January 2, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

Context and Kabbalah

Christian missionaries will grab hold of anything that they might be able to use to justify their belief in the trinity. Be it a Scriptural passage, an analogy from the physical world or a passage from the writings of the Jewish rabbis. The fact that the Jewish rabbis all identified the Christian veneration of Jesus as idolatrous, doesn’t seem to faze the missionary in the least. If they can find a line or a passage that can be read as a support for their cause, they will use it – regardless of the overall textual context of the book and regardless of the living context of the book; the lives and beliefs of the people who wrote these books and of the community that holds these books sacred.

Let us examine one of the more popular missionary proof-texts from the kabbalistic work; the Zohar. In Volume 2, page 43b the Zohar speaks of three that are mysteriously one. The three that are one, are the three names of God mentioned in the Shema – the central declaration of Jewish faith. Missionaries trumpet this passage as a “proof” that the ancient kabbalists believed in a trinity.

The assumption that the Jewish kabbalists believed in the trinity is about as realistic as the belief that the founding fathers of the United States were secret loyalists to George the third, King of England. The argument does not deserve a refutation. But for those who are not fully aware of the Jewish aversion to the deification of a human and for those who will believe the most fantastic conspiracy theories – I will ask them to turn one page in the Zohar.

On page 42b in that same volume the Zohar declares that God Himself is One, and is above all identification – even above His name. The Zohar goes on to explain that the names of God only describe His interaction with His creations and do not begin to describe God’s own essence. The Zohar points to Deuteronomy 4:15 and Isaiah 40:18, 25 as the Scriptural teaching on the nature of God.

It is clear that when the Zohar speaks of three that are one on the very next page, the intention is NOT that God is somehow three and one at the same time as Christians believe. But rather, the Zohar is teaching us that the three modes of God’s interaction with the world are intrinsically one.

For one who has already accepted that the Zohar preaches a trinity as a matter of faith, I don’t believe that a logical argument will convince them to reconsider their position. So if a missionary quotes the Zohar to you, don’t expect to get him to change his mind. But at least you can give him some homework. You can tell him to read the Zohar from the previous page. Then you can tell him that Thomas Jefferson was actually attempting to express his loyalty to the King of England. Somehow, he ended up with the Declaration of Independence.

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 | 14 Comments

Israel and Jerusalem – Eternal Choices

Posted on January 1, 2012 by yourphariseefriend

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

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

Jesus, on the other hand, was a human being with a human personality. Christians acknowledge as much. No one ever claimed that the body of Jesus was an empty shell that served as a resting place for an entity that was completely unrelated to his body. When the body of Jesus was crucified, Christians acknowledge that he suffered – not in the sense of the suffering that a person experiences when his house is destroyed, but in the sense of the pain that a person experiences when his own body is hurt. A popular Christian credo asserts that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. No one ever dreamed of making the claim that the tabernacle was both fully physical structure and fully divine.

The comparison that Christians make between the tabernacle and Jesus doesn’t work. It is no more than a poor excuse for the justification of idolatry.

But what was the tabernacle? What do we mean when we say that God came to dwell in the tabernacle built by Moses or in Solomon’ Temple?

Perhaps we can understand the concept of God dwelling in the tabernacle when we understand the concept of God dwelling amongst the people of Israel. We find that the people of Israel are also called God’s sanctuary (Leviticus 20:3). The Scriptures describe God’s relationship to Israel with the same terms that the Scriptures describe God’s relationship with the Temple: “My name is called upon nation/house/city” (1Kings 8:23, Daniel 9:18,19, 2Chronicles 7:14). The association between God and the Temple is similar to the association between God and the people of Israel. Both of these are eternal choices that God made as to how He identifies Himself to mankind.

The term that the Scriptures use to describe God’s relationship with Israel and with the Temple (- “His name is called upon them”) is also used to describe the relationship between a husband and wife in the context of marriage (Isaiah 4:1). Marriage is more than just a relationship between a man and a woman. A man and a woman could share a secret relationship, but we would never call that relationship by the term: “Marriage”. It is only when the two parties agree to tie their identities together for all to know that we can then say that they are married.

The same applies to God’s choice of Israel and the Temple. When God chose Israel, He did not just enter into a relationship with them. He tied Himself to them in such a way that henceforth He identifies Himself towards all of mankind as the God of Israel and Israel identifies herself as the people of God. This was not something that was done secretly between God and Israel. God made His choice of Israel public to all who were able to see at the time – i.e. the Egyptians. The entire nation of Egypt saw the Nile turn into blood for seven days. They all saw the unparalleled plagues which culminated with the splitting of the sea. Since then, God has allowed no other nation to lay claim to anything that can even remotely compare to the Exodus and the revelation at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:33,34). God points to the uniqueness of this claim as a sign that God’s covenant – His marriage, with the people of Israel still stands – to the end of time.

Indeed, since them, when people think of the Creator of all existence, they associate Him with the people of Israel. And when people see Jewish people worshiping their God, everyone knows who it si that is being worshiped – the One Creator of all.

The same applies to the Temple in Jerusalem. God didn’t just simply choose a place for His people to worship. He made this choice public knowledge. He tied His identity to this place. He calls the Temple: “My House”. From the time that God chose the Temple in Jerusalem, He calls Himself; “The one who dwells in Zion” (Joel 4:17) and the Temple is called the house of God (Psalm 122:9).

The association between God and the Temple in Jerusalem is an eternal association that still stands (Psalm 78:69, 132:14). When Jews pray towards the site of the temple everyone knows who they are praying to and when the Temple in Jerusalem is mentioned (such as when people speak of the Channuka miracle) everyone knows that this was the dwelling place of the Creator of heaven and earth.

The way that God made the choice of His house public knowledge is through His people; Israel. Once it is already established that this nation is His bride, then when they unanimously acknowledge that this place was graced by the presence of their God – the world knows that the Creator of heaven and earth came to dwell here.

Now that the Temple is destroyed and Israel is in exile, God’s honor is diminished in the eyes of the world. People understand that it is God’s house that is in ruins and that it is His people that are scattered in foreign lands. The Messianic vision of the prophets foresaw a time when God returns to dwell in His house and sanctifies His people – openly – to the eyes of all mankind (Ezekiel 37:28). Because then, and only then, will all mankind truly recognize that there is no power aside from the One Creator of heaven and earth (Isaiah 40:5, Psalm 102:16).

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