Friday, December 30, 2011

Deanne Shallenberger (Glenn) - Homeward Bound



Deanne Glenn's new single "Homeward Bound" 

"Lyrics by Joshua Shallenberger Purchase the hit single "Homeward Bound" as heard on Hebrew Nation Radio: www.lulu.com A passionate cry to Yahweh to return to the covenant so that the nations might be restored as His people (Israel) once again."



FROM.. YOU ARE MY WITNESSES (Is. 43:10) THE TRADITIONAL JEWISH RESPONSE TO CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES by Yisroel C. Blumenthal

The authors of the Christian scriptures describe the
development of the early church in the following manner.
Jesus was a Jewish man, who lived in the land of Israel. When
he was about thirty years old, he began to travel throughout the
country. For about three years, Jesus traveled and taught. By
the time Jesus died, he had created a small following. All of
his followers were Jews. Prominent among Jesus’s followers
were his twelve disciples. These disciples formed a
community with its center in Jerusalem. The community of
Jesus’s followers was lead by James, a brother of Jesus. This
community is referred to as the “Jerusalem Church”. In the
years following Jesus’s death, the Jerusalem Church grew in
size. At one point, the authors of Christian scriptures claim
that they numbered several thousand. But the members of this
church were all Jews.

Christianity reached the non-Jewish world through the
person of Paul. Paul traveled the length and breadth of the
Mediterranean, teaching the gentile world about Jesus. Paul
founded many churches throughout the Roman Empire. The
churches which Paul established were predominantly gentile.
The Christian scriptures end their narrative at this point.
They leave the reader at the historical point where there are
two churches; the Jewish church of James, and the gentile
church of Paul.

History tells us that the Jewish church of James did not
survive as a separate entity. By the time Christianity became
the established religion of the Roman Empire, there were
almost no Jewish Christians left. The few Jewish Christians
which still existed, were persecuted as heretics by the gentile
church. All of Christianity as it exists today, was transmitted
through the body of the gentile church. The books of Christian
scripture were products of the gentile church. They may have
included in these books, material which came from the Jewish
Christians. But the gentile church was the editor of this
material. It was the gentile church who determined the
contents of the Christian scriptures, and who transmitted these
texts to the future generations.

In order to be convinced that the gentile church is truly
transmitting the original message of Jesus, one must determine
that Paul’s teachings conformed with the teachings of Jesus.
The gentile church only learned of Jesus through the teachings
of Paul. If Paul’s teachings were not synonymous with the
teachings of Jesus, then the gentile church does not possess the
original message of Jesus.
To determine Paul’s connection to Jesus, we will turn to the
books of Christian scripture. It is clear that the editors of these
books were strongly motivated to present Paul as one who is
faithfully transmitting the original message of Jesus. Yet even
these biased writers, were not able to do so.

The Christian scriptures describe the basis of Paul’s mission
in the following manner. Paul never saw Jesus in real life.
Neither did Paul learn of Jesus’s teachings through the
disciples of Jesus. Paul emphatically states (in the 1st and 2nd
chapters of Galatians) that no living person was involved in
transmitting Jesus’s message to him. Paul only learned of the
teachings of Jesus through a series of visions. In these visions,
Jesus appeared to him and imparted his teachings. Paul’s
entire message was the product of these visions.

The only way we can verify the truth of Paul’s claim, is by
determining the reaction of Jesus’s disciples to Paul’s
message. These men who lived with Jesus and heard him
teach, could compare the teachings that they heard, to the
prophecy of Paul. How did the Jewish following of James
react to Paul’s claim to prophecy?

Paul makes the claim (Galatians 2:9) that the leaders of the
Jerusalem Church acknowledged the fact that he was
appointed (by the dead Jesus) as a messenger to the gentiles.
But Paul was lying. James and the Jerusalem Church never
acknowledged the validity of Paul’s visions. It is the Christian
scriptures themselves who contradict Paul’s claim.

The 15th chapter of the book of Acts, describes how the
leadership of the Jerusalem Church disregarded Paul’s claim
to prophecy. Paul had come to Jerusalem. He had been
preaching to the gentiles that they are not required to practice
the law of Moses. Some members of the Jerusalem Church
disagreed with Paul. They felt that in order for a gentile to join
their following, he should be required to observe the law of
Moses. This question was brought before the leadership of the
Jerusalem Church. The elders of the church discussed the
question, and James handed down his decision. His judgment
was that the gentiles were not obligated to observe the entirety
of the law of Moses as a prerequisite to joining the Christian
community. But he stipulated that the gentiles were obligated
to observe certain dietary laws, and to avoid immorality.

If Paul was telling us the truth when he claimed that the
leadership of the Jerusalem Church acknowledged him as a
true prophet, then this story makes no sense. Here we have
Paul, who was personally appointed by the dead Jesus as his
emissary to the gentile world. Whatever Paul taught was
personally revealed to him in these prophetic visions. One of
the central teachings of Paul was that the gentile world is not
bound by the law of Moses. Yet when the leaders of the
Jerusalem Church are in doubt as to what Jesus would have
said concerning the gentiles, they discuss the question, and
look to James for guidance. If there was any truth to Paul’s
claim, that these leaders acknowledged the truth of his
prophecy, then they should have simply asked him “what did
Jesus tell you?” The fact that they considered the question, and
the method that they used to resolve the question, clearly tells
us that these men did not believe that Jesus had ever spoken to
Paul. The author of the book of Acts, his bias
notwithstanding, could not hide this simple fact.

The difference between the gentile church founded by Paul,
and the Jerusalem Church founded by Jesus, was not limited to
the question of the authenticity of Paul’s prophecy. These two
institutions espoused two totally different philosophies. The
central teaching of Pauline Christianity is, that faith in the
redeeming sacrifice of Jesus, is the only valid method through
which atonement for sin can be achieved. The entire
philosophy of Paul, revolves around this one teaching.
Evangelical Christianity is founded upon this basic teaching of
Paul. If you were to ask an Evangelical Christian to sum up his
belief system in one sentence, he would respond with this
point. That faith in Jesus is the only redemption from sin. In
fact the entire concept of the messiah-ship of Jesus is basically
limited to this one point. Jesus is the messiah of Evangelical
Christians, only because they believe that his death provided
atonement for sin.
But the Jerusalem Church which was established by Jesus,
and which was guided by his disciples, did not believe in this
teaching of Paul. They did not believe that faith in Jesus could
effectively atone for their sins. This is demonstrated by the
testimony of the Christian scriptures. The 21st chapter in the
book of Acts reports that the normal activities of the members
of the Jerusalem Church included the offering of animals for
the explicit purpose of the expiation of sin. The book of Acts
describes how four members of the Jerusalem Church had
taken a Nazirite vow. This means that they had voluntarily
brought themselves into a situation where they would be
required (by the law of Moses) to bring an animal as a sin
offering. It is clear that these people saw in the temple
offerings a valid method for the expiation of sin. If they
believed as Paul did, that Jesus died for their sins once and for
all, then there would be no point in bringing a sin offering in
the temple. The fact that the Jerusalem Church still
participated in the temple offerings after Jesus had died, tells
us that they did not see in Jesus’s death an all atoning
sacrifice. These people were not Evangelical Christians.

The Christian scriptures provides both the theological and
the historical justification to the accusation that Christianity
has failed in the transmission of its own message. The
Christian scriptures tell us that the disciples of Jesus never
believed the fundamental teaching of Evangelical Christianity.

These people who lived with Jesus and heard him preach did
not believe, that with the death of Jesus, the world is redeemed
of its sins. The Christian scriptures also tell us, at which
historical point the break in the transmission occurred. These
books tell us that Paul, the father of modern Christianity, had
no connection to Jesus. Christianity is an edifice erected upon
the testimony of one man. All of Christianity stands upon
Paul’s word that Jesus appeared to him. The only people that
were qualified to verify Paul’s claim, contradicted him to his
face. This emerges from the pages of the very books which
Christianity regards as true witnesses to its claims.


Sunday, December 18, 2011

Saturnalia for Dummies

 

Saturnalia for Dummies


 
There is no Biblical warrant, precedent, nor precept for remembrance of the day of Christ's birth as a day of special religious celebration. This is not to say that we shouldn't remember Christ's birth and its significance, but for religious commemorations or celebrations, we must have Biblical command or precedent! The fact of the matter is this -- the early church did not celebrate Christ's birth, but such celebration only came into the church with the "Christianization" of pagan rites as Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the fourth century A.D. Since the Word of God does not support the tradition of Christmas, a Christian's conscience ought not and must not be bound.

The following outline describes the origin of Christmas (with its associated pagan customs, symbols, and terminology), details the Scriptural support against celebrating Christmas, attempts to show that celebrating Christmas violates the spirit of every one of the ten commandments, attempts to demonstrate that celebrating Christmas does not fall in the realm of Christian liberty, and attempts to debunk eight of the major rationalizations Christians put forth for celebrating Christmas.


2. Nativity Scenes (tainted with paganism) -- Nearly every form of pagan worship descended from the Babylonian mysteries, which focus attention on the "mother-goddess" and the birth of her child. This was adapted to "Mary-Jesus" worship, which then easily accommodated the multitude of pagans "converted" to Christianity inside Constantine's Roman Catholic Church. If anyone were to erect statues (i.e., images) of Mary and Joseph by themselves, many within Protestant circles would cry "Idolatry!" But at Xmas time, an image of a little baby is placed with the images of Mary and Joseph, and it's called a "nativity scene." Somehow, the baby-idol "sanctifies" the scene, and it is no longer considered idolatry! (cf. Exo. 20:4-5a; 32:1-5a; 9-10a).

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Yiddish Handbook: 45 Words You Should Know






S'iz given a shvere togedike nakht

Beatles - A Hard Day's Night - in Yiddish







Yiddish Handbook: 45 Words You Should Know


The Yiddish language is a wonderful source of rich expressions, especially terms of endearment (and of course, complaints and insults). This article is a follow up on Ten Yiddish Expressions You Should Know. Jewish scriptwriters introduced many Yiddish words into popular culture, which often changed the original meanings drastically. You might be surprised to learn how much Yiddish you already speak, but also, how many familiar words actually mean something different in real Yiddish.
There is no universally accepted transliteration or spelling; the standard YIVO version is based on the Eastern European Klal Yiddish dialect, while many Yiddish words found in English came from Southern Yiddish dialects. In the 1930s, Yiddish was spoken by more than 10 million people, but by 1945, 75% of them were gone. Today, Yiddish is the language of over 100 newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts, and websites.
  1. baleboste
    A good homemaker, a woman who’s in charge of her home and will make sure you remember it.
  2. bissel
    Or bisl – a little bit.
  3. bubbe
    Or bobe. It means Grandmother, and bobeshi is the more affectionate form. Bubele is a similarly affectionate word, though it isn’t in Yiddish dictionaries.
  4. bupkes
    Not a word for polite company. Bubkes or bobkes may be related to the Polish word for “beans”, but it really means “goat droppings” or “horse droppings.” It’s often used by American Jews for “trivial, worthless, useless, a ridiculously small amount” – less than nothing, so to speak. “After all the work I did, I got bupkes!”
  5. chutzpah
    Or khutspe. Nerve, extreme arrogance, brazen presumption. In English,chutzpah often connotes courage or confidence, but among Yiddish speakers, it is not a compliment.
  6. feh!
    An expression of disgust or disapproval, representative of the sound of spitting.
  7. glitch
    Or glitsh. Literally “slip,” “skate,” or “nosedive,” which was the origin of the common American usage as “a minor problem or error.”
  8. gornisht
    More polite than bupkes, and also implies a strong sense of nothing; used in phrases such as “gornisht helfn” (beyond help).
  9. goy
    A non-Jew, a Gentile. As in Hebrew, one Gentile is a goy, many Gentiles are goyim, the non-Jewish world in general is “the goyim.” Goyish is the adjective form. Putting mayonnaise on a pastrami sandwich is goyish. Putting mayonnaise on a pastrami sandwich on white bread is even more goyish.
  10. kibbitz
    In Yiddish, it’s spelled kibets, and it’s related to the Hebrew “kibbutz” or “collective.” But it can also mean verbal joking, which after all is a collective activity. It didn’t originally mean giving unwanted advice about someone else’s game – that’s an American innovation.
  11. klutz
    Or better yet, klots. Literally means “a block of wood,” so it’s often used for a dense, clumsy or awkward person. See schlemiel.
  12. kosher
    Something that’s acceptable to Orthodox Jews, especially food. Other Jews may also “eat kosher” on some level but are not required to. Food that Orthodox Jews don’t eat – pork, shellfish, etc. – is called traif. An observant Jew might add, “Both pork and shellfish are doubtlessly very tasty. I simply am restricted from eating it.” In English, when you hear something that seems suspicious or shady, you might say, “That doesn’t sound kosher.”
  13. kvetsh
    In popular English, kvetch means “complain, whine or fret,” but in Yiddish, kvetsh literally means “to press or squeeze,” like a wrong-sized shoe. Reminds you of certain chronic complainers, doesn’t it? But it’s also used on Yiddish web pages for “click” (Click Here).
  14. maven
    Pronounced meyven. An expert, often used sarcastically.
  15. Mazel Tov
    Or mazltof. Literally “good luck,” (well, literally, “good constellation”) but it’s a congratulation for what just happened, not a hopeful wish for what might happen in the future. When someone gets married or has a child or graduates from college, this is what you say to them. It can also be used sarcastically to mean “it’s about time,” as in “It’s about time you finished school and stopped sponging off your parents.”
  16. mensch
    An honorable, decent person, an authentic person, a person who helps you when you need help. Can be a man, woman or child.
  17. mishegas
    Insanity or craziness. A meshugener is a crazy man. If you want to insult someone, you can ask them, ”Does it hurt to be crazy?”
  18. mishpocheh
    Or mishpokhe or mishpucha. It means “family,” as in “Relax, you’re mishpocheh. I’ll sell it to you at wholesale.”
  19. nosh
    Or nash. To nibble; a light snack, but you won’t be light if you don’t stop noshing. Can also describe plagarism, though not always in a bad sense; you know, picking up little pieces for yourself.
  20. nu
    A general word that calls for a reply. It can mean, “So?” “Huh?” “Well?” “What’s up?” or “Hello?”
  21. oy vey
    Exclamation of dismay, grief, or exasperation. The phrase “oy vey iz mir” means “Oh, woe is me.” “Oy gevalt!” is like oy vey, but expresses fear, shock or amazement. When you realize you’re about to be hit by a car, this expression would be appropriate.
  22. plotz
    Or plats. Literally, to explode, as in aggravation. “Well, don’t plotz!” is similar to “Don’t have a stroke!” or “Don’t have a cow!” Also used in expressions such as, “Oy, am I tired; I just ran the four-minute mile. I could just plotz.” That is, collapse.
  23. shalom
    It means “deep peace,” and isn’t that a more meaningful greeting than “Hi, how are ya?”
  24. shlep
    To drag, traditionally something you don’t really need; to carry unwillingly. When people “shlep around,” they are dragging themselves, perhaps slouchingly. On vacation, when I’m the one who ends up carrying the heavy suitcase I begged my wife to leave at home, I shlep it.
  25. shlemiel
    A clumsy, inept person, similar to a klutz (also a Yiddish word). The kind of person who always spills his soup.
  26. schlock
    Cheap, shoddy, or inferior, as in, “I don’t know why I bought this schlocky souvenir.”
  27. shlimazel
    Someone with constant bad luck. When the shlemiel spills his soup, he probably spills it on the shlimazel. Fans of the TV sitcom “Laverne and Shirley” remember these two words from the Yiddish-American hopscotch chant that opened each show.
  28. shmendrik
    A jerk, a stupid person, popularized in The Last Unicorn and Welcome Back Kotter.
  29. shmaltzy
    Excessively sentimental, gushing, flattering, over-the-top, corny. This word describes some of Hollywood’s most famous films. From shmaltz, which means chicken fat or grease.
  30. shmooze
    Chat, make small talk, converse about nothing in particular. But at Hollywood parties, guests often schmooze with people they want to impress.
  31. schmuck
    Often used as an insulting word for a self-made fool, but you shouldn’t use it in polite company at all, since it refers to male anatomy.
  32. spiel
    A long, involved sales pitch, as in, “I had to listen to his whole spiel before I found out what he really wanted.” From the German word forplay.
  33. shikse
    A non-Jewish woman, all too often used derogatorily. It has the connotation of “young and beautiful,” so referring to a man’s Gentile wife or girlfriend as a shiksa implies that his primary attraction was her good looks. She is possibly blonde. A shagetz or sheygets means a non-Jewish boy, and has the connotation of a someone who is unruly, even violent.
  34. shmutz
    Or shmuts. Dirt – a little dirt, not serious grime. If a little boy has shmutz on his face, and he likely will, his mother will quickly wipe it off. It can also mean dirty language. It’s not nice to talk shmutz about shmutz. A current derivation, “schmitzig,” means a “thigamabob” or a “doodad,” but has nothing to do with filth.
  35. shtick
    Something you’re known for doing, an entertainer’s routine, an actor’s bit, stage business; a gimmick often done to draw attention to yourself.
  36. tchatchke
    Or tshatshke. Knick-knack, little toy, collectible or giftware. It also appears in sentences such as, “My brother divorced his wife for some little tchatchke.” You can figure that one out.
  37. tsuris
    Or tsores. Serious troubles, not minor annoyances. Plagues of lice, gnats, flies, locusts, hail, death… now, those were tsuris.
  38. tuches
    Rear end, bottom, backside, buttocks. In proper Yiddish, it’s spelledtuchis or tuches or tokhis, and was the origin of the American slang wordtush.
  39. yente
    Female busybody or gossip. At one time, high-class parents gave this name to their girls (after all, it has the same root as “gentle”), but it gained the Yiddish meaning of “she-devil”. The matchmaker in “Fiddler on the Roof” was named Yente (and she certainly was a yente though maybe not very high-class), so many people mistakenly think that yentemeans matchmaker.
  40. yiddisher kop
    Smart person. Literally means “Jewish head.” I don’t want to know whatgoyisher kop means.
  41. Gonif – thief
  42. Shnorren – to beg or mooch
  43. Versteh – understand, get it? – use in place of “capeesh” (from Italian, capire) for a one word interrogative for “Do you understand? ”
  44. Macher – a “hot shot” or “big wig”
  45. Zaftig – buxom or hefty (but in a good way)

As in Hebrew, the ch or kh in Yiddish is a “voiceless fricative,” with a pronunciation between h and k. If you don’t know how to make that sound, pronounce it like an h. Pronouncing it like a k is goyish.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

God hates human sacrifices


Jews believe that God hates human sacrifices.
Who died on the cross? Was it Jesus-the-god, or was it Jesus-the-human? If it was Jesus-the-god, Jews don't believe that God can die. If it was Jesus-the-human, then all Christians have in the death of Jesus was a human death, a human sacrifice. Jews believe that God hates the very idea of human sacrifice.
IN SHORT... What, EXACTLY does God say about human sacrifice in the TaNaCH? In Deuteronomy 12:30-31, God calls Human sacrifice something that He hates, and an abomination to Him, "for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. In Jeremiah 19:4-6, God tells us that Human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind to demand it from His creation, "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." We see the same thing in Psalm 106:37-38, and in Ezekiel 16:20. This means that God would not accept Jesus's death on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. The very idea of that God would accept a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is UnBiblical.
A FULL EXPLANATION...
The Christian idea of the messiah is that Jesus was the blood sacrifice that saves everyone from his or her sin. But who, EXACTLY died on that cross? If it was Jesus-the-god, then how can God die? If it was only Jesus-the-human, then all Christians have in the death of Jesus is a human sacrifice. And what, EXACTLY does God say about human sacrifice in the TaNaCH?
In Deuteronomy, God calls Human sacrifice something that He hates, and an abomination to Him!
Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]
In Jeremiah, God tells us that Human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind!
Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Eternal, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but The Valley of Slaughter. [Jeremiah 19:4-6]
We see the same thing in Psalm 106 and in Ezekiel 16:
Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. [Psalm 106:37-38]
Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter? [Ezekiel 16:20]
And yet we are to then turn around and believe that God changed His mind, and required human sacrifice, and then it was the sacrifice of His own human son that God wanted? After telling the Jews to stay away from pagan practices, and pagan beliefs, God then changes His mind and says, "Okay, now go ahead and believe in a human sacrifice, just as these very pagans believe?"
The Christian definition of the term, Messiah, is closer to the pagan notion of a dying/saving god or hero than to the Jewish understanding of Messiah. The ancient world is filled with examples. Mithra, Adonis, Dionysis, Attis, Ra, and many others were born in the Winter, died in the Spring, and came back to life. Along with this, they believed that their followers would not die, but have immortal life, since the death of the hero/god acted as their sacrifice for their sins. The pagan world was filled with gods who were the product of a human mother and a god for the father. Even Hercules had Zeus for a father, and a human mother.
When the earliest Christians would come into the synagogues and missionize, they would get kicked out. They were not allowed to stay and preach, they were rejected, because their message was pagan, was recognized as such by the Jews, and they were removed and separated from the Jewish people as a result. This shows the real reason why Judaism and Christianity separated from each other. It also shows that one cannot be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. See Question Number 9. Source: http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation4.html

The Nicene Christian Concept of "the Blood"

There are some Nicene heresies that are so deeply rooted in the Christian psyche that for those seeking authentic biblical religion getting beyond them is very difficult, even with the Light of Torah. One of these is the "Blood of Jesus" dogma. The famous Christian hymn declares this central Nicene dogma clearly:

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus
What can make me white as snow?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.


The Nicene dogma of "the blood atonement" causes many to question and even reject the clear word of Torah! Some even claim that the Torah of HaShem has been "nailed to the cross" and made irrelevant!


It's this simple #1 You have to make up your mind to believe Torah (which is not to be changed) or The New Testament that changes it...



Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 

Proverbs Chapter 30:5-6 Every word of God is tried; He is a shield unto them that take refuge in Him.
Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. 

Deutronomy 13.1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
2 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder, 3 and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'; 4 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.