Thus saith the LORD of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.
This blog's been flagged because it includes content that "other people" on Facebook have reported as abusive. Share B"H
"The Law is Not in Heaven." Seems simple, right? God gave us the Torah and now we can do whatever we want with it.
If you only read the first half of the story of Achnai's oven, that's exactly what you might think, but it's a little more complicated than that. Given the events that unfold after the initial debate is over, "Lo Bashamayim Hi" becomes more of a question than a statement—it's even unclear what side God's on. We decided to capture this uncertainty by telling the entire story with all its difficulties, and not giving away any easy answers. The length and wordiness of the text lent itself to a ballad, weaving narration and dialogue through one voice with a medieval- traveling minstrel feel. The characters engage with the story through a full range of emotions, expressing the passion and exasperation that arise because of this debate. The music itself dips and swells, becoming the argument, the mourning rabbis, and the turbulent sea. There is so much action and so many questions in this story that it is a microcosm of the Talmud itself; loud, messy, without a clear end or beginning, and raising more questions than answers. We hope our film does the same.
There is an halakhic expression: hatora lo' bashamayim hi (התורה לא בשמים היא) - the Tora is not in heaven. It comes from the following passage of the Talmud. (Since the quote is much too long for my usual triplicate format, I will just quote the translation from here. I have highlighted some key words to help those who want to go back and forth.)
השיב רבי אליעזר כל תשובות שבעולם ולא קיבלו הימנו אמר להם אם הלכה כמותי חרוב זה יוכיח נעקר חרוב ממקומו מאה אמה ואמרי לה ארבע מאות אמה אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי אמת המים יוכיחו חזרו אמת המים לאחוריהם אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מאמת המים חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו הטו כותלי בית המדרש ליפול גער בהם רבי יהושע אמר להם אם תלמידי חכמים מנצחים זה את זה בהלכה אתם מה טיבכם לא נפלו מפני כבודו של רבי יהושע ולא זקפו מפני כבודו של רבי אליעזר ועדיין מטין ועומדין חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי מן השמים יוכיחו יצאתה בת קול ואמרה מה לכם אצל רבי אליעזר שהלכה כמותו בכל מקום עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר לא בשמים היא מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה אחרי רבים להטות
אשכחיה רבי נתן לאליהו אמר ליה מאי עביד קודשא בריך הוא בההיא שעתא אמר ליה קא חייך ואמר נצחוני בני נצחוני בני
On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!' Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. 'No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,' they retorted. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!' Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — 'No proof can be brought from a stream of water,' they rejoined. Again he urged: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,' whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: 'When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?' Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!' Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: 'Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!' But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven.' What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.
R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed [with joy], he replied, saying, 'My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.'
In other words, no miracle or sign from heaven, even to the extent of a heavenly voice calling out "the halakha is according to so-and-so" is considered proof of your interpretation of God's word. The only valid authority is tradition, i.e. the majority opinion of the previous generation. The Tora (now that it has been given) is not made in heaven, it is made right here on earth, by mortal men.
As an aside, I have always loved that last line: nishuni banay (ניצחוני בני) - my sons have defeated me. (Or, more precisely, 'my sons are victorious over me'. Nisahon [ניצחון] means victory, it is related to nesah [נצח] - eternity.) It is an example of the playfulness often found in the Talmudic text. Remember, the Talmud is a record of actual discussions between real people. Nishuni banay doesn't really make literal sense (if God is saying it), but it effectively conveys the message that Man's fate is in his own hands, and God approves. SOURCE:
Deu 30:12-14 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?' But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
The first day. yom echad "The day of Him Who is One." Light is Hidden Away for the Righteous Ones This piece features Rabbi Lawrence Kushner and discusses the purpose of "light" and why we have two creations of light in the first creation story of Genesis 1. It's really a fascinating and cool little animated video. Our Sages teach that the original light that was created on the first day of creation was hidden away for the future because this world is not fit to enjoy it. The Zohar explains that that light is all goodness, with no hint of strict justice. Thus, were that light revealed, the world would be so bountiful that mankind would serve Hashem because of the goodness He has given them, and not for the sake of doing mitzvot. This, explains R’ Guntzler, is what the midrash means when it says that Torah scholars are poor--the absence of the light is itself the poverty--so that they will not be distracted from doing mitzvot for their own sake. The Gemara (Sotah 21a) states: “A sin can extinguish a mitzvah, but it cannot extinguish Torah.” R’ Guntzler explains: A mitzvah is called a “candle,” while the Torah is called “light,” a reference to the hidden light. As noted, that light is all goodness, with no hint of strict justice; therefore, a sin cannot extinguish it.
The Torah uses this phrase (or ki tov) to describe the light that was created on the first day of Creation, when “the Holy One, blessed be He, alone existed in His world,” yachid beolamo. (This was before the eventual creation of the angels. At that time the creation of heaven and earth - for these were created on the first day - took place at a level so sublime that any possibility of two reigning authorities was unthinkable.) Because at that time G-d alone existed in His world, the Torah calls the first day yom echad. This phrase, which ordinarily means “one day,” is also understood by the Sages to mean “the day of Him Who is One.”
Through Torah, Tzaddikim Leap Over Time
What does this really mean?
Concerning “the light which is good” the Sages teach that “G-d hid it away for the tzaddikim in the Time to Come.” To this the Baal Shem Tov added: “And where did He hide it? - In the Torah.” This means that in the Torah there is now hidden the light that will be present in the Time to Come. Accordingly, by means of the Torah it is possible, even now, to attain a revelation of the light of the Time to Come. [1]
Chumash Themes #16: Pursuing Holiness & Love Your Neighbor by Rabbi Zave Rudman
The entire nation gathers to hear about holiness.
Leviticus chapter 19
Introduction
In Leviticus 19:2, Moses is commanded: "Speak to entire congregation of Israel, and command them to be Holy – since I, God, am also holy." This gathering was an unusual event, and prompts us to consider a number of questions:
Why does the commandment to be holy require that the entire nation gather to hear it?
The commandments that follow are mostly regarding interpersonal relations. Why are these commandments holy? Doesn't holiness relate more to things like the Temple service?
What exactly is this command to "be holy"? Are we expected to be holy like God, a seeming impossibility?
Gathered Together
The commentators offer three beautiful explanations why this "holy mitzvah" needed to be taught while the entire Jewish people were gathered together.
Rashi explains: Since the main body of the Torah is included in this section and it applies to everyone without exception, this section was said to the entire nation. We need to understand that holiness applies not only to select individuals on a high level, but even to the simplest Jew. We all have to aspire to holiness, and we all can attain it. This follows the general principle that God only commands something that we are capable of fulfilling.1 Failure comes in because we underestimate our abilities.
This section is taught when everyone is together, to teach us that a Jew can attain true holiness only if he connects himself to the Jewish people.
You do not have to separate yourself from society and go meditate in a forest to become holy. These mitzvot are not for angels. They are mainly interpersonal commandments, such as honoring parents, feeding the poor, not slandering, and not hating in our heart. Being a contributing part of society is a personal obligation. Everyone should aspire to elevate himself, and at the same time aspires to elevate the community. That's why the command to be holy, kedoshim t'hiyu – is written in the plural.
Lets step back and ask a more fundamental question: How is a human being to acquire holiness? Isn't that reserved for the realm of angels?
The Ramchal, in his classic work of Jewish ethics, Mesilat Yesharim,2 explains: Holiness is a very high level that we could not attain on our own. We begin to make an effort – and then God gives it to us as a gift. You can only go so far, and God does the rest.
Therefore, these mitzvot need to be taught to the entire community. As individuals, we don't deserve God's most elevated gifts. Rather, it is only through the power of Jewish unity that God will bring us to a point of true fulfillment. This is indicated in the prelude to the Ten Commandments, "And you shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6).
Definition of ‘Holy’
The two classical Torah commentators, Rashi and Ramban (Nachmanides), offer a difference of opinion on what it means to be holy.
Rashi says that in order to be holy you have to stay away from forbidden actions. That is achieved not just by refraining from those actions, but also by constructing fences to not stray too close to spiritual dangers. A person who respects these "fences" is on the path to holiness. And, if the boundaries are broken, that is the opposite of holiness.
One example is the idea of Yichud, the Jewish prohibition against being secluded in a private area with certain members of the opposite gender. How many times have we heard of one spouse, for example, who was working late on a project with a colleague (of the opposite sex) and gotten into a problematic situation that threatened to destroy their marriage? That's why the Sages instituted the laws of Yichud, as a fence against such episodes.3
Ramban disagrees and says that the key to holiness is to separate even from activities that are technically permitted! For example, while there is no Torah law against drinking wine, a person can go so overboard that he becomes what Ramban describes as a "scoundrel within the confines of Torah." Similarly, a person who eats only kosher food could still be disgusting in the eyes of the Torah if he eats like a glutton. The definition of holiness, says Ramban, is to maintain moderation even in things permitted.
Both of these approaches are obviously correct. On one hand, a person needs a healthy respect for what is forbidden: Just as you would erect a fence to keep away from a physical danger (e.g. an open pit), so too we respect the severity of Torah prohibitions by constructing fences. And in addition, we increase our sensitivity to God-like behavior by moderating our physical consumptions. In this way, all our actions carry a refined sense of holiness.
How Much Holiness?
How much holiness should a person strive to attain?
Actually, the command to be holy is unquantifiable, and in a certain way this is more difficult than a clear-cut command. For after all, how is one to measure whether he is living up to the right “standard of holiness"?
The answer is as we said before: This commandment is given to the entire community. If your being holy enhances your connection to the community, then you are behaving correctly. But if it causes a separation between you and those around you, that is incorrect. Our actions, provided they are within the confines of Jewish law, should always be gauged by what will bring the biggest Kiddush Hashem, sanctification of God’s Holy Name.
This idea is illustrated by the Holy Ark which contained the Tablets of the Ten Commandments. This Ark was a square box made of wood, covered with pure gold from the inside and from the outside.4 But if the Ark is covered with gold both on the inside and the outside, then what need is there at all for the shell to be made out of wood?! Why not simply make the ark one solid piece of gold? The commentaries explain that case, the Ark will be too heavy for others to carry. And this teaches us that a person should not adhere to a standard of holiness that could have a negative effect on the community.
An extension of this is the idea that in performing any action – either mundane or a mitzvah – we should have the intention of doing it in a holy way. The purpose of this world is that it should cause us to cling to God, not for our own pleasure. Even when I am performing a mitzvah that includes physical pleasure, such as Shabbat or even marital relations, we are supposed to enjoy ourselves, but never lose sight of the fact that God is inextricably bound to this pleasure.
If a person designates his existence for a higher purpose, rather than focusing on himself, than even what he does do for himself is holy. In that way he can maximize the power of those physical pleasures.
Future Tense
There is another question that can be raised: Why is this command stated in the future tense, you command to be holy – kedoshim t'hiyu – rather than in the present tense like most other commands?
This teaches that this mitzvah has no limits. Every level you reach in holiness is just a stepping stone to the next higher level. We should never be complacent in thinking that we have reached perfection in the present. There is no limit to God's holiness, and as we are created in the image of God, we are meant to emulate that holiness.5
A person may, for example, keep kosher inside the home but eat in non-kosher restaurants. While keeping a kosher home is a big commitment, whose importance cannot be minimized, the question is: Does the person recognize that this is one stage that must lead to a greater commitment? Or does the person view this as a plateau, a stopping-point where, “I am comfortable just where I am and feel no need to grow further”?
This differing philosophy represents a key difference between Torah Judaism and other streams of Jewish thought. Are we constantly striving to fulfill all of the 613 mitzvot in their ideal way, or have we established a limit, a comfort level, beyond which we feel no need to reach beyond.
Central Idea
Notice that Leviticus chapter 19 contains many commands in the realm of interpersonal relationships – e.g. love your neighbor, don’t take revenge, etc. Holiness is not just between myself and God.
This is illustrated by the well-known Gemara6 about someone who wanted to convert and asked to learn the entire Torah while standing on one foot. In other words, he wanted to know the one central idea that represents the whole torah. The great sage Hillel answered him, "That which you dislike, don't do to your friend.”
Another way of understanding why “be holy” is written in the future tense is that it is not just a command, but a promise and encouragement that despite the difficulties and ups and downs, we will be holy. There is an internal, eternal holiness of the Jewish people that remains, even if we don't always express it on the outside.
This explains the phenomena of people who seem to be completely disconnected from the Jewish nation, and suddenly finding their way home again. Soviet Jewry is a classic example. They were seemingly completely assimilated and unconnected, having been trapped behind an iron curtain for two generations – with no Jewish education or leadership. The wake of the Six Day War brought a spontaneous outbreak of Jewish identity and joy. This began the movement of the refuseniks, typified by Natan Sharansky, and ultimately the great immigration of Russian Jews to Israel and their reattachment to the Jewish people.
This is also the individual spark of Judaism, known as the “Pintele Yid,” which explains the popularity of the Baal Teshuva movement. Literally tens of thousands of assimilated Jews have made their way back to full Torah observance. There is no rational way to explain it.
As a resident of Jerusalem, I frequently visit the Western Wall, where I am constantly approached by people, asking deep and searching questions. They explain: “Somewhere deep inside, I feel connected here.”
At that gathering thousands of years ago, every Jewish soul was told: “You will be holy.” There is a spark of holiness in every Jews, and even if we do not see it, it is there, dormant, waiting to be kindled.
Pieces of the Same Soul
Midrash Tanchuma (Vezot HaBracha 4)
Chapter 26
Talmud – Kiddushin 80b. There are many details of these laws; see Even Ha’ezer Ch. 22
Oldest Biblical Manuscripts Ketef Hinnom dating from around 600 BCE. The two paleo-Hebrew Ketef Hinnom inscriptions are famous for being our oldest biblical manuscripts. (Yet they contain even more readings than the famous priestly blessing of Numbers 6.) The present analysis provides the most reliable readings to date. They clarify two points of dispute: the date and nature of the artifacts. The authors support the thesis that these inscriptions constitute amulets with apotropaic functions and date them to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the sixth century BCE. Just as important, readers will find here an inside look at how epigraphers use state of the art technology to bring new readings to light.
The scrolls found in Ketef Hinom, as displayed in the Israel Museum
The site consists of a series of rock-hewn burial chambers based on natural caverns. In 1979 two tiny silver scrolls, inscribed with portions of the well-known apotropaicPriestly Blessing of the Book of Numbers and apparently once used as amulets, were found in one of the burial chambers. The delicate process of unrolling the scrolls while developing a method that would prevent them from disintegrating took three years. They contain what may be the oldest surviving texts from the Hebrew Bible, dating from around 600 BCE.
Here you will find the Hebrew Bible (Tana"kh) and the RaMBaM's Complete Restatement of the Oral Law (Mishneh Torah): Together these give God's full guidance for both Jews and Gentiles in all times and places detailing what God expects us to do and not do. Through the study and observance of these two guides to Torah (God's instructions) we can all live richly rewarding lives and avoid painful errors. Both our online and offline Bible and Mishneh Torah texts have been carefully prepared, and they are as accurate as found in the very finest printed editions. (Additional materials are also provided, but they are not the heart of this site.)
Five free online resources for learning Torah:
The Complete Hebrew Bible (Tanach) in five editions in Hebrew (including one with cantillation marks), English (JPS 1917), parallel Hebrew and English (voweled Hebrew and JPS English), andparallel Hebrew and French (voweled Hebrew and Rabbinat French). The beginning (the 5 books of the Torah plus Joshua and Judges) of a Hebrew Bible with vowels and popup commentaries on difficult words and phrases. The Torah in Aramaic (Targum Onqelos on the Five Books of Moses) with vowels or without vowels as well as a parallel Hebrew and Aramaic Torah by weekly readings (parashiyot). Tiqqun Qore'im with letter only text of the Torah and Megillat Esther with vowels and cantillation marks appearing when the mouse is over words and disappearing when the mouse moves off of them.
An encyclopedia in English of Torah basics (Torah 101)
Search engines to find what you need in these resources in Hebrew and in English; you can easily enter Hebrew with vowels or even cantillation marks for searching either our site or the whole Web with Google using our javascript "keyboards" and your mouse
Update Your Salvation Obey Acts 2:38 What the Church doesn't want you to know.
Primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity.
What the Church doesn't want you to know It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time. It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods. The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:
"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)
Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine's point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilizing religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems. The smooth generalization, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are "entirely legendary" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge" and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of foundation" and needed official stabilization (ibid.). Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry). Their writings totaled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518). That Fabulous Fable At first, Constantine honoured the tetrarchy which had stabilized the empire for a generation but Galerius himself died in 311 and Constantine saw his opportunity. In the spring of 312, in the first of his civil wars, Constantine moved against the ill-fated Maxentius to seize control of Italy and Africa, in the process almost annihilating a Roman army near Turin, and another outside of Rome. A nonsense repeated ad nauseam is the fable of the ‘writing above the sun’ which advised Constantine of his divine destiny. In its worst form, the legend has it that the words ‘In this sign, you shall conquer’ and the sign of the cross were visible to Constantine and his entire army. The words would have been, perhaps, Latin ‘In Hoc Signo Victor Seris’, a bizarre cloud formation unique in the annuls of meteorological observation. On the other hand, more than one author (e.g. S. Angus, The Mystery Religions, p236) says that the words were in Greek ('En Touto Nika'), which would have left them unintelligible to the bulk of the army. Then, again, perhaps they were in both Latin and Greek, a complete occluded front of cumulus cloud! Digging below the legend however we discover that the vision was in fact a dream reported some years later by Constantine to his secretary Lactantius (On the Death of the Persecutors, chapter xliv; ANF. vii, 318.) The fable was later embellished by the emperor's ‘minister of propaganda’, Bishop Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine (1.xxvi-xxxi). The ‘sign of the cross’ was an evenlater interpolation (the cross was not a Christian symbol at the time of the battle – nor would be until the 6th century!). Any ‘good luck emblem’ at this date would have been the chi-rho – ambiguously the first two letters of the word Christos, the Greek word for ‘auspicious’ and also Chronos, god of time and a popular embodiment of Mithras! What is perhaps most significant about this ‘origins’ fantasy is that ‘lucky charms’ had entered the parlance of Christianity. Constantine did not need to be a Christian; invoking its symbols was sufficient to win divine patronage. But did he invoke its symbols? Coins issued at the time celebrating his victory showed only Sol Invictus: his triumphant arch, still standing, refers only to ‘the gods’. In truth, Constantine was not a particularly pious man. Famously, he delayed his baptism until he was close to death for fear of further sinning – with good reason: among his many murders was that of his first wife Fausta (boiled alive) and eldest son Crispus (strangled). The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records" Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint). This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ. The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620). There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia. It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes (God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36). Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods-Apollo and Zeus-but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanised version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Saviour" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god. Julius Caesar was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the "Saviour of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Saviour and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings. Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion. "As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41). At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".
Bear in mind, the Jewish Scriptures were written in Hebrew, not in seventeenth century King James English. What has made Christian believers so vulnerable to Bible tampering is that almost none of them can read or understand the Hebrew Bible in its original language. Virtually no Christian child in the world is taught the Hebrew language as part of a formal Christian education. As you and countless other Christians earnestly study the Authorized Version of the Bible, there is a blinding yet prevailing assumption that what you are reading is Heaven-breathed. Tragically, virtually every Christian in the world reads the translation of men rather than the Word of God. On the other hand, every Jewish child in the world who is enrolled in a Jewish school is taught to read and write Hebrew long before he or she even heard the name of Luther. Unbeknownst to you and parishioners worldwide, the King James Version and numerous other Christian Bible translations were meticulously shaped and painstakingly retrofitted in order to produce a message that would sustain and advance Church theology and exegesis. This aggressive rewriting of biblical texts has had a devastating impact on Christians throughout the world who unhesitatingly embrace these corrupt translations. As a result, Christians earnestly wonder, just as you have, why the Jews, who are the bearers and protectors of the divine oracles of God, have not willingly accepted Jesus as their messiah.[1]
YOU ARE MY WITNESSES
(Is. 43:10)
THE TRADITIONAL JEWISH RESPONSE
TO CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
PUBLISHED BY THE BUCKS COUNTY COMMUNITY KOLLEL
INTRODUCTION
On the Sabbath of August 4 in the year 1263, the
synagogue of Barcelona was host to a royal guest. James the
first, king of Aragon, had come to talk to his Jewish subjects.
The king attempted to persuade the congregants that they
ought to convert to Christianity. When the king finished his
speech, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (RaMBaN, Nachmanides)
stepped forward to give expression to the feelings of his
brothers.
After a preliminary demonstration of respect for the
crown, the Rabbi addressed the king with these words. A I am
amazed. The words said in our presence to convince us that
the Nazarene is the Messiah, were said by the Nazarene
himself when he brought this same message to our ancestors
and tried to persuade them. They refuted him to his face with a
perfect and strong rejection despite the fact that it was he who
spoke, who knew and could argue his claim that he is divine,
in accordance to your opinion, better than you can today. Now,
if our ancestors who saw him and knew him did not heed him,
how then can we believe and heed the voice of the king, whose
only knowledge of the matter stems merely from the hearsay
of distant reporters who heard it from people who neither
knew him nor were his countrymen as our ancestors knew him
and witnessed his life.”
The simple words of Nachmanides reflect the clarity of
vision, the calmness of spirit, and the solid conviction of the
Jew’s rejection of Christianity. Throughout the ages the Jew
faced hardship, and persecution and sometimes even death as a
result of this rejection. But the Jew was not moved. The Jew
went about doing whatever he had to do, patiently negotiating
the various obstacles the hostile Christian world threw into his
path. But it never occurred to him to join that world. Being a
Jew was as essential as life itself, and even more than that.
When being a Jew meant death, the Jew went to die
accompanied by his wife, his little children, and a simple love
for his God. But Christianity? Never.
It happened however, that in certain phases of Jewish
history, many Jews seem to have lost this resistance to
Christianity. We live in one of those periods today. Hundreds
if not thousands of Jews have joined the Messianic, and
Hebrew Christian congregations. This wave of apostasy, as did
those which preceded it, comes on the heels of another wave.
A Jewish conversion to Christianity, whether it takes place on
the individual level or on the communal level, follows a
breakdown of the Jewish educational system. Most converts to
Christianity had little connection to their heritage before they
converted. A Jew who is truly connected to a living Judaism
would sooner die than be a Christian.
Why? What is it that the Jew knows about Christianity that
inspires him to reject it? How can the Jew be so confident that
it is better to be dead than to be a Christian?
The traditional Jew knows very little about Christianity.
But the little that he knows is far more than enough. The Jew
knows that Christianity rejects the fundamental beliefs of
Judaism. The Jew knows that Christianity calls a man, god.
All the philosophical explanations offered to justify Christian
theology are wasted on the Jew. These simple facts cannot
change. The law of Moses is not Christianity, and the God of
Abraham is not a trinity. His faith in the God of Abraham and
Moses, inspired the Jew with the confidence to reject
Christianity.
A Jew who lives as his ancestors did before him,
experiences the law of Moses in his daily life. Love and
awareness of the God of Abraham, fills the Jew’s heart and
soul. Perhaps he cannot articulate how it is that he knows the
law of Moses to be immutable, but he knows it nevertheless.
Some Jews who walk with God may find it difficult to point
out the faults in the various arguments presented by the
missionaries in their attempt to justify their worship of Jesus.
Nevertheless, these Jews know that worship of a human-being
is idolatry. But in our generation, when so many Jews are
disconnected from the simple faith of their ancestors, it has
become necessary to articulate and to explain the Jewish
rejection of Christianity.
In the following pages you will find an articulation of the
traditional Jewish viewpoint. These words are not written to
replace a living connection with authentic Judaism, but rather
to encourage it. As a Jew you have probably wondered what
went through the minds of our ancestors when they went to die
for the “crime” of rejecting Jesus. It is possible that your
interest in this subject was fueled by the increased efforts of
the missionaries in recent years. You have found that the
missionary campaign to “save your soul” has reached
obnoxious proportions. This may have served as an inspiration
for you, to learn more about the traditional Jewish response to
the missionaries. In any case, we hope that you will find in this
work a starting point for research in this field.
Some of those who read this booklet may be Christians. As
a Christian, you may have wondered why it is that the Jewish
people have such a resistance to Christianity? Why is it that
most Jewish people do not even bother to read the Christian
scriptures? Do these Jews think that just because they were
born into the religion, then this religion must be right? How
are these people so confident that they are right? These, and
similar questions may have been troubling you. The purpose of
this booklet is to answer these questions. We hope that you
find this work helpful in understanding the traditional Jewish
mind-set.
If you are a Jew, who subscribes to the Christian belief
system, then please read this work as an appeal to your sense
of honesty. Do not take me on my word, check things out for
yourself. Please acquaint yourself with the richness of your
heritage. Find out what it means to be a Jew. Find out what it
means to be chosen as God’s witness to the world. Taste, and
see that God is good, fortunate is the man who takes shelter in
Him. (Ps. 34)
FOCUS
Both Judaism and Christianity are belief systems. Each has
its own way of looking at the world. These two systems are
fundamentally different from each other. Only one of these
systems can be correct. Judaism and Christianity are mutually
exclusive.
The foundations of Judaism are the events of the exodus and
the revelation at Sinai. These established the relationship that
the Jewish people have with God. These events established the
credibility of Moses as God’s prophet. The Jewish people
worship the God which revealed Himself to them at Sinai. The
Jewish people follow the teachings of Moses, the prophet of
God. The Jews of all generations accept this belief system
based on the testimony of their parents. A Jew is born into a
nation which worships the God of Sinai, and which lives by
the teachings of Moses. It is through the testimony of his
nation that the Jew learns the belief system which is Judaism.
Christianity has a dual foundation. First, Christianity
believes in the prophets of Jewish scripture. The second
foundation of Christianity is the life and teachings of Jesus.
The Jewish prophets are the ones who proclaimed that the
Messiah is to come, and Jesus supposedly came and fulfilled
that prophecy. The miracles that the Christian scriptures claim
were performed by Jesus, establish the credibility of Jesus and
his message. The person of Jesus is worshipped by Christians
as a god, and the teachings of Jesus form the belief system
which is Christianity. Christians of all generations accept this
belief system based on the testimony of the Christian
scriptures.
These two belief systems clash on several fundamental
points. From the Jewish perspective, the important differences
between the two belief systems relate to the nature of God, and
to the teachings of Moses.
Who is God?
Judaism worships the Almighty God. Jews believe that God
is not a physical being, nor can God be represented by a
physical being. God is not constrained by time or space. God
is all powerful and all knowing. God is one. The Jewish belief
about the oneness of God is described by the term “absolute
unity”. This means that any plural number cannot be used in
describing the essence of God. This is the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. This is the God who spoke to His people at
Sinai. The focus of Judaism is on God. The life of the Jew is
devoted to this God.
Christianity worships Jesus. Christianity believes that god is
one at the same time that he is three. The Christian god
consists of the father (who roughly parallels the Jewish God),
Jesus, and the holy ghost. These three are considered by the
Christian to be coequal members of the godhead. The focus of
Christianity is on Jesus. The life of the Christian is devoted to
Jesus.
What are the teachings of Moses?
Judaism believes that the law of Moses is a living law. It is
a law which can, and should be followed by a nation. A nation
which includes all types of people. The law of Moses is
applicable in all generations, and in all situations. The full
teachings of Moses include more than that which is written in
the five books of Moses. The five books of Moses only
contain the general structure of the law. Moses also taught the
definition of the law. These teachings of Moses which clarify
the law were not recorded in the five books, but rather, these
were retained in the collective memory of the nation. As a
static body of law the teachings of Moses require living people
to apply it to practical life. Moses taught the nation the
methods they are to use in order to render the law applicable to
every situation. When a Jew does not know how to apply the
law to a particular situation, he consults with the teachers who
are familiar with the methods of application which were taught
by Moses. The Jew finds practical guidance for daily life
within the law of Moses.
Christianity does not recognize any teachings of Moses
which are not recorded in the five books. Christianity rejects
the Jewish testimony which pertains to the practical
application of the law. Christianity believes that many of the
scriptural teachings of Moses are no longer relevant.
Christianity does not see in the law of Moses a guide to
practical living. (Indeed today some Messianic congregations
have taken steps towards recognizing the binding nature of the
law of Moses. These people are also beginning to realize the
importance of the defining teachings of Moses. But this is not
the traditional Christian position.)
From the Christian perspective, the important differences
between the Jewish and Christian belief systems, are the
differences in attitude towards atonement and the Messiah.
How does one achieve atonement for sin?
Judaism accepts that the only method for expiation of sin is
repentance. If one sincerely regrets his sins, confesses his guilt
before God, and redirects his life towards God, then God
forgives the sin. There are many actions through which one
can express the attitude of repentance. Prayer, charity, and
bringing offerings to God’s altar, are legitimate expressions of
a repentant heart. In some situations God commands us to
bring an offering to give expression to our repentance. But it is
the sincerity of the repentance which ultimately achieves the
reconciliation with God.
Christianity believes that the only method for atonement of
sin is through blood sacrifice. The only blood sacrifice which
can actually redeem from sin, is the sacrifice of Jesus. Through
worship of Jesus the Christian connects with the blood that
expiates his sins.
What is the role of the Messiah?
Judaism believes that the Messiah will be a human king. In
the time of the Messiah there will be universal peace. The
temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. The Jewish people will
return to the land of Israel. In the time of the Messiah everyone
on earth will be united in their worship of the God of Israel.
The Messiah will lead all of mankind in service of God.
Christianity believes that the Messiah is a human god.
Christianity believes that the chief role of the Messiah is to
die. Through the death of the Messiah the world is redeemed
of its sins. According to Christian theology, the Messiah will
come a second time. When the Messiah returns, then all those
who worshipped him will be rewarded, while those who
rejected him will be punished.
These are the basic differences between the two belief
systems. Judaism and Christianity differ on their
understanding of the essence of God, the teachings of Moses,
atonement, and the role of the Messiah. Judaism and
Christianity have different beliefs concerning these basic
matters. Only one set of beliefs can be true. Christian
missionaries spend much energy in an effort to convince Jews
that the Christian belief system is the one which is correct. All
the arguments of the missionaries are wasted on the
knowledgeable Jew.
In order for the Jew to be convinced that his belief system is
correct, he must be sure that the testimony of his nation is true.
If the Jewish nation is bearing true witness, then any belief
system which runs counter to their testimony must be false. If
the Jewish people are telling the truth when they testify that
God revealed Himself as an absolute unity, then any belief
system which denies the absolute unity of God must be false.
If the Jewish people are telling the truth when they testify that
Moses taught them a living teaching (Torah), then any belief
system which denies this fact must be false. It is not necessary
for the Jew to examine the testimony of other belief systems to
know that Judaism is true.
For the Christian to be convinced that his belief system is
true, it is not enough to be sure that the Christian scriptures are
reporting actual events. In order for the Christian to know that
his belief system is correct, he must also determine that the
Jewish nation is bearing false witness. For if the Jewish nation
is telling the truth, then even if Jesus performed all the
miracles which the Christian scriptures claim for him, he
would still be a fraud. If indeed God revealed himself at Sinai
as an absolute unity, then anyone who advocates worship of a
trinity is advocating idolatry. No miracle, no matter how
spectacular, can serve as justification to worship an idol. In
order to be an honest Christian one must be convinced that the
Jewish people are bearing false testimony.
TESTIMONY
The history of each of the world religions consists of two
periods. The first period is the formative period. This is the
time when the belief system was established. The formative
era is when the founders of the belief system came to believe
in that particular system. Generally this consists of a sequence
of events which convinced the founders of the religion as to
the veracity of the faith that they were about to adopt. Then
comes the era of transmission. This is the time period which
separates the foundation of the belief system and the present.
Each belief system must provide some way of transporting its
message safely through the ages. People who subscribe to any
particular belief system must be confident that the founders of
their belief system were correct in their assessment of the
situation. If there is no way to determine that the founders of
the religion were not mistaken, then it is naive to accept their
belief system. One must also be sure that the message of the
belief system did not get distorted through the passage of time.
If the method of transmission is not fool-proof, then again, it is
naive to accept the belief system. If there is no way to
ascertain the integrity of the transmission, then there is no way
of knowing that the belief system being presented is the same
system which was adopted by the founders of the faith.
The entire belief system which is Judaism is founded upon
two pieces of information. The first piece of information is the
simple fact that God is an absolute unity. The second piece of
information is the fact that Moses is the prophet of God. Both
of these pieces of information came to the Jewish people
directly from God. At Sinai, God revealed Himself to the
Jewish people. It is through this national prophecy that the
Jewish people came to know that God is absolutely one. At
Sinai, God spoke to Moses while the entire nation listened in.
This is how God demonstrated to His people that Moses is His
prophet. For forty years, Moses lived among the Jewish nation.
During these forty years the nation lived in seclusion. They ate
bread that rained down from heaven, and they drank water
which poured out from a rock. And during this time, Moses
taught them the law which God had revealed to him. When
Moses died, he left behind him a complete body of law.
Nothing can be added to the teaching of Moses, nor can
anything be detracted from it. With the death of Moses, the
formative era of Judaism came to a close.
After Moses, Judaism had many prophets and many
teachers. But the prophets and teachers did not come to
introduce a new law. The role of the prophets which followed
Moses, was to encourage the people to uphold the law of
Moses. The prophets were appointed by God to reprove the
nation when they went astray from the law of Moses, and to
guide the people in bringing their lives back in line with the
law of Moses. The prophets also took the basic themes
presented by Moses, such as the suffering of the Jewish nation
and their ultimate redemption, and illustrated how these
concepts would be played out. But never do the prophets add
or detract from the law of Moses.
The role of the teachers of the Jewish nation which
followed Moses, is to guide the people in the practical
application of the law of Moses. Using methods of deduction
which were laid down by Moses, the teachers of Israel draw
from within the law of Moses, precise instructions which
render the law of Moses applicable to every situation. But the
teachers did not introduce new law. The prophets and the
teachers did not participate in the formation of the Jewish
belief system. These men could not be involved in the
formation of Judaism. Moses remains the only man authorized
by God to deliver His holy law to the people.
Judaism recognizes the limited authority of the prophets
and the teachers, only because Moses taught that these men
should be granted this measure of authority. It is the law of
Moses which defines the terms; prophet, and teacher. And it is
the law of Moses which delineates the roles of the prophets
and the teachers. According to these guidelines, the Jewish
people recognized many great teachers and prophets. But these
men did not affect the formation of the belief system. The
formation of the Jewish belief system was completed by
Moses. At the time of Moses’s death the Jewish nation already
possessed a complete belief system.
The era of transmission began when Moses left his people
encamped on the eastern bank of the Jordan river. God chose
to transmit His message, through the living legacy of the
Jewish nation. By the time Moses died, the entire belief system
which is Judaism was firmly planted in the hearts and minds
of the Jewish nation. This belief system was the focal point of
their daily lives. The second generation was born into a nation
that worships the God of Sinai, and lives with the teachings of
Moses. It is through the living action and belief of an entire
nation that we receive the word of God.
The written word is also utilized in the transmission of the
Jewish belief system. The core of the teachings of Moses was
recorded by Moses in the five books. The words of some of
the prophets were also written down. Together, the five books
of Moses, and the books of the prophets, make up the Jewish
scriptures. The books of the Mishna and the Talmud, also play
a role in the process of transmitting the Jewish belief system
through the ages. The Mishna and the Talmud record many of
the decisions which were made by the teachers of Israel
pertaining to the application of the law. These books also
contain many of the teachings of Moses which were not
recorded by Moses in his five books. The books of scripture,
the Mishna, and the Talmud, enabled the nation to retain a vast
amount of knowledge. But the role of all of these books, is
secondary to the testimony of the living people. It is only the
testimony of the living people which informs us that these
books are authentic and authoritative. The fact that these
books were in the possession of a living nation, preserved the
accuracy of the texts. And it is only through the living legacy
of the nation that we can arrive at a true understanding of the
spirit of these books. The written word, no matter how
explicit, can always be misinterpreted.
The Jew can be confident that the testimony of his nation is
true. Both the formation of the belief system, and the
transmission of the system were national experiences. In order
to assume that the Jewish belief system is false, one must
accept that an entire nation is unanimously lying.
A Jew is born into a nation of witnesses. A child who is born into a
Jewish community in which the educational system is still
intact, enters a world of living Judaism. The Jewish
educational system is not limited to the scholastic experience.
The Jewish home, is the keystone of the Jewish educational
system. Long before the Jewish child can read, he has come to
know the Creator of the world. Through the simple faith of his
parents, the child begins to develop a real relationship with the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The living example of his
parents will teach the child what Sabbath means to the Jew.
Passover, Pentecost (Shavuot), and Tabernacles (Succoth), are
living realities in the Jewish home. Through the observance of
these holidays the Jewish child learns of the exodus, the
revelation at Sinai, and the seclusion of the Jewish nation in
the wilderness for forty years. (These were the formative
events of the Jewish belief system.)
As the child grows older, he is introduced to the holy books of Judaism. The child learns
the position that each of these books occupy, in the minds and
hearts of his people. The meaning and the spirit of these books
come alive for the child through the example of his parents
and teachers. The child comes to realize that this world of
Judaism is the same all over the globe. Wherever Jews who
are faithful to the teachings of their ancestors can be found, the
belief system is the same. Jews all over the world teach their
children to worship the Creator of the world who is absolutely
one.
Wherever Judaism is alive, Sabbath is the same, kosher
food is the same, and family purity is the same. Whenever the
Jew has a question concerning the law of Moses, he will
consult with the teachers of the law. All over the world, the
teachers of Israel use the same methods of deduction to
provide answers to the questions posed to them. The Jewish
people teach their children that this is how their parents taught
them to live, who learned it from their parents etc. in a chain
which extends back to Moses. There is no Jew alive today, nor
is there any record of a Jew, who claims to possess a deviant
tradition which goes back to Moses. All the Jews in history
who deviated from the unanimous practices of the nation,
admitted that they did not receive their deviant teachings from
the previous generation. There is only one belief system which
comes with the claim that it goes back to Moses. And that is
the Judaism into which the Jewish child is born. He knows
that his people are not lying. And he will pass on to his
children the testimony that he received from his parents.
Throughout history many people rejected or ignored the
national testimony of the Jewish people. The Jew faced the
rejection of these people with equanimity. The Jew saw that no
one else possesses a belief system which claims to have been
established by God on a national scale. No other belief
systems began its journey through time on a national level.
Every other belief system is placing its trust in the testimony
of individuals. Individuals can lie. Individuals can be
mistaken. A nation cannot unanimously lie. A nation cannot be
unanimously mistaken concerning concrete events which were
collectively experienced. As long as no rival belief system is
claiming a national revelation, the Jew can be confident that
Judaism is true. As long as Moses remains the only prophet
who had the truth of his mission attested to by God on a
national scale, the Jew can be confident that his teachings still
stand.
If the Jew faces other belief systems with equanimity, then
he faces Christianity with sheer amazement. Other belief
systems may reject the Jewish testimony outright. But
Christianity is different. Although Christianity rejects the
Jewish testimony, they still accept the Jewish scriptures.
The Jewish scripture is one of the pillars of the Christian faith. The
Christian claim to the messiah-ship of Jesus, is founded upon
the presumption that he fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish
scriptures. If the Christians would recognize that Jesus did not
fulfill these prophecies, they would then admit that he is not
the Messiah.
All the alleged miracles of Jesus would be tossed
out the window if his message would be seen as running
contrary to Jewish scripture. It is only because Christians
believe that Jesus’s mission conforms with the vision of the
Jewish prophets, that they accept him as the Messiah.
Who were the prophets of Jewish scripture that the
Christian belief system considers their words so powerful?
How do we know that they really existed? And how do we
know that the books of scripture were indeed authored by
them? How can we know that these people were not frauds? In
the history of mankind few terms were misused as often as the
title “prophet”. What criteria was used to establish the
authenticity of the scriptural prophets?
The only way that the world knows of the existence of the
Jewish prophets is through the testimony of the Jewish people.
The Jewish nation bears witness that these men existed and
that the books of scripture were written by them. The Jewish
nation testifies that these men were able to demonstrate that
they were really sent by God. The criteria used to determine
the authenticity of the prophets were the teachings of Moses as
applied by the teachers of the Jewish nation. If these teachers
would not have acknowledged that the prophets of scripture
were authentic, we would not have their books today. The
testimony of the Jewish nation is the means through which the
message of the prophets travels through time.
But Christianity places no trust in the testimony of the
Jewish people. Christianity maintains that the Jewish people
are lying about the fundamental concepts of their belief
system. Christianity is founded upon the notion that the Jewish
people are bearing false witness concerning the revelation at
Sinai. All of Christendom admits that this was an event which
took place in the presence of the entire nation. Christianity
acknowledges that this revelation made it clear to the Jewish
people if God is, or isn’t, an absolute unity. The Jewish people
testify that God revealed Himself as an absolute unity. Yet
Christianity asserts that the Jews are unanimously lying, every
last one of them. Christianity believes that the Jewish people
falsely attribute to Moses a massive body of law which he
never taught. So how can Christianity be sure that this nation
of liars is not attributing the books of scripture to prophets
who never wrote them? Christianity accuses the Jewish nation
of maintaining loyalty to a fraudulent belief system. So how
can Christianity rely on the this same nation to sort out the
genuine prophets from the frauds?
The Jew accepts the words of the Jewish scripture based
upon the testimony of the Jewish people. But upon which
foundation does the Christian base his acceptance of Jewish
scripture?
Christianity uses the words of the Jewish prophets to lay
the groundwork of their belief system. At the same time
Christianity has total confidence that the Jewish nation is
bearing false witness. This is hypocrisy. Either the witness is
lying or he is telling the truth. It cannot be both.
SCRIPTURE
In the early years of Christianity, the Church came to the
realization that in order to establish its own credibility, it must
first discredit Judaism. There were many methods the Church
used in order to achieve this objective. These included
spreading lies about the Jews, teaching that the Jews are
children of the devil, and general vilification of the chosen
nation. The only attempt that the Church made to appeal to the
human intellect was their exploitation of the Jewish scriptures.
The Church attempted to present the Jewish scriptures as a
document which supports the Christian belief system, and as
one which stands in contradiction to the Jewish belief system.
The Church would have us believe that the authors of Jewish
scripture, namely; Moses and the prophets, all subscribed to
the Christian belief system. In order to substantiate this
preposterous theory, the Church spent millions of man-hours
combing the length and breadth of the Jewish scriptures. They
were looking for verses which could be read as supportive to
the Christian belief system. From the thousands of verses in
Jewish scripture, the Church has found a handful of statements
which could be manipulated to read as supportive of the
Christian belief system, and as standing in contradiction to
Judaism. The Church then presented these verses, together
with the Christian explanation of these verses, and made the
claim that the authors of these verses were Christians by
belief.
The Church proposes the argument that the Jewish
people are not loyal to their own holy books. Based on the
Christian interpretation of these verses (known as “prooftexts”)
the Church advances the theory, that the Jewish belief
system stands in direct contradiction to the sacred books
venerated by the Jewish people. According to the Christian
claim, the authors of these books subscribed to the Christian
belief system, while their disciples confused their message,
and created Judaism. The Church thus claims that Judaism
failed in the transmission of the very foundations of their
religion.
If indeed the Church has succeeded in demonstrating that the
Jewish belief system possesses inherent contradictions, then
the Jewish scriptures should be discarded. We must bear in
mind that it is only through the testimony of the Jewish people
that we have scripture. It was the religious leadership of the
Jewish people who determined the authenticity of the
scriptural prophets. If the Jewish method of transmission
managed to distort the very essence of their religion, then it is
foolhardy to accept their scriptural canon.
The truth of the matter is, that the Jewish nation has been
studying scripture since it was put down in writing. Every
word, and every nuance of the text is precious to the Jew. Jews
have been reading these “proof-texts” centuries before
Christianity was born. Each one of those verses has a classical
Jewish interpretation, which clearly explains how these verses
conform with the Jewish belief system. The Church maintains
that the Jewish interpretation is wrong. The Church asserts that
it is only an anti-Christian bias, which blinds the Jews from
seeing the true meaning of these verses. The problem with this
assertion is that many Christian scholars have come to agree
with the Jewish interpretation of these verses. These people
were not blinded by an anti-Christian bias, yet they accept the
Jewish understanding of these verses as honest interpretation.
It seems perhaps, that the Church is operating under a bias. It
is this pro-Christian bias which causes them to read these
verses as proof to the veracity of the Christian belief system.
Much of the missionary effort to attract Jews to Christianity
is focused on these proof-texts. These are the verses in the
Jewish scripture which Christians see as supportive of their
belief system. These verses relate to the areas of difference
between the Jewish and Christian belief systems. The verses
which the missionaries use as proof-texts are not the only
verses which speak about these subjects. Jewish scripture
gives a lot of coverage to each of these subjects, and the proof-
texts form only a small segment of the overall picture which
scripture presents. Scripture gives us a clear picture
concerning each of these subjects. The general message of
scripture conforms with the Jewish belief system. The few
missionary proof-text verses are generally vague and
ambiguous. If the Christian interpretation of these verses is
honest, then we would be facing an inherent contradiction
within scripture itself. If one would not know the Jewish
interpretation for a given proof-text, the honest thing to do is
to say “I don’t know what it means” rather than assume that
this verse stands in contradiction to the general message of
scripture.
Judaism and Christianity differ in their attitudes towards the
essence of God, the teachings of Moses, atonement, and the
Messiah. What is the clarity that scripture gives us on these
subjects? What is the overall message of scripture? In this
brief study we will not examine the missionary proof-texts. It
will suffice for us to see that the Jewish belief system is firmly
rooted in the words of the prophets.
1 The essence of God
The Jewish scriptures testify that God revealed Himself to
the entire body of the Jewish nation. The entire nation heard
God’s voice proclaim “I am the Lord your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. You
shall not have any other gods beside Me.” This is how God
demonstrated to His people who it is they are to worship. At
the same time God was teaching the people whom they are not
to worship. Worship of anyone other than the God who
brought the nation out of Egypt, is idolatry. The Jewish
scriptures testify that the Sinaitic revelation was an allinclusive
demonstration. After the revelation at Sinai there can
be no room for doubt. Concerning this revelation Moses tells
the Jewish people “To you it was demonstrated in order that
you know that the Lord is the God, there is none beside Him.”
The people who were privileged to witness this great
revelation were commanded “you should make it known to
your children and to your children’s children.” When God
commands the nation to kill people who are involved with
idolatry, He makes reference to this revelation. In those cases
where the death penalty is to be implemented, God identifies
the idol by the simple terms “that which I have not
commanded” or “those which you do not know.” It is clear
that God expects the Jewish people to identify the idol by
process of elimination. If this is not what you were
commanded to worship, then it is another god. The Jewish
people testify that God revealed himself at Sinai as an absolute
unity. Worship of anyone else, is by definition, idolatry. (The
biblical quotations in the preceding paragraph can be found in Exodus
chapter 20, and Deuteronomy chapters 4, 13, and 18.)
No one ever claimed that it was Jesus who was revealed to
the Jewish people at Sinai. The first worshipers of Jesus did
not claim that with their worship they were following a
tradition which goes back to Sinai. According to the definition
of scripture, worship of Jesus is idolatry.
The Jewish people were granted a revelation in order that
they should know whom to worship. This was an extra. It is
clear from Jewish scripture that God expects the human
conscience to be able to distinguish between worship of God,
and idolatry. Time and time again, the prophets appeal to
human logic, and sometimes even to human humor in order to
demonstrate the evil of idolatry. Jeremiah exclaims (Jer.
10:11) “Tell them, gods that did not create heaven and earth
should go lost from this earth and from beneath these
heavens.” Jeremiah is pointing out the absurdity which is
inherent in worship of anyone aside from the Creator. A god
who operates in an arena which he did not create, is no god.
Similarly, Isaiah points out the foolishness of placing faith in a
human-being. (Is. 2:22) “Cease ye of man that has breath in
his nostrils for of what worth is he.” Isaiah is demonstrating
the futility of worshipping a man. If he is dependent on a 23
constant supply of oxygen for his own well being, then how is
he going to help you?
Worship of a human being, is abhorrent to the human
conscience. Yet this is what Christianity advocates. Whichever
way you wrap it, Christianity is pointing to a man, and saying
“that is god”. Scripture is clear that when it comes to idolatry,
you should not ignore the cry of your conscience. Again, by
scriptural definition, worship of Jesus is idolatry.
2The teachings of Moses
Judaism testifies that Moses taught them an entire body of
law which defines the scriptural commandments. Judaism also
testifies that the law of Moses authorizes people to make
decisions in order to implement scriptural law. These
decisions are binding upon the entire nation. Christianity
rejects this testimony. Christianity asserts that Moses taught no
more than what he wrote in the five books. And he certainly
didn’t authorize anyone to make decisions concerning the
application of God’s law.
Upon examining scripture, one discovers that the Christian
rejection of the Jewish position is illogical. If we read scripture
with the Christian position in mind, we will find that the
teachings of Moses are practically meaningless. Take the
scriptural holidays as an example. God directs His people to
celebrate the holiday of Passover. Anyone who eats leaven
during this holiday is liable to the divine punishment of having
his soul cut off. This is to take place from the fourteenth day to
the twenty-first day of the first month. Scripture does not tell
us when this first month is to begin. In fact, scripture says
nothing about the construction of a calendar. If we assume that
Moses was told nothing more than what he wrote in the five
books, then we are facing a serious problem. How are we
expected to know when Passover is going to begin? It is
obvious that Moses was told by God how to construct a
calendar which would determine when God’s holidays are to
be celebrated. Indeed the Jewish people testify that Moses
taught them how to construct a calendar which would
determine the times of the scriptural holidays. Throughout
history this is the calendar that the Jews have been following.
The Jews observed the holidays according to the teachings of
Moses which were not recorded in the five books.
There are many groups today who subscribe to the Christian
belief system, but at the same time they attempt to observe the
scriptural holidays. These people observe Passover on the
same days that the Jewish nation celebrates Passover. This is
hypocrisy. If indeed these people believe that Moses was
taught nothing which he did not record in the five books, they
should construct their own scriptural calendar. And if they
admit that there were some teachings of Moses which were not
recorded in scripture, then they should ask themselves the
following questions. How did God expect us to learn of these
unwritten teachings of Moses? What means did God use to
transport this information to us? If God considered the
testimony of the nation a reliable means of transporting a
complicated calendar, then how can these people be so
confident that the testimony of this same nation is not reliable
concerning simple matters, such as the absolute unity of God?
Scripture is equally clear concerning the authority of the
teachers of Israel to render decisions concerning God’s law. In
chapter 17 of Deuteronomy, Moses directs the people to
consult with the courts. The decision of the court is to be
heeded. One who blatantly ignores the court decision should
be put to death. Similarly, we find in chapter 19 of second
Chronicles, how the righteous king Jehoshaphat fulfilled this
directive of Moses. The chapter describes how Jehoshaphat
established courts in the land of Judah and in the city of
Jerusalem. The king refers to two leaders to whom the judges
can turn to with their questions. One was to direct the courts
concerning God’s law, while the other officer’s role was to
decide matters which pertain to the king. It is quite clear that
the scriptures expected these judges to make decisions
concerning the application of God’s law.
In chapters 13 and 17 of Deuteronomy, Moses directs the
entire nation to participate in the execution of people involved
with idolatry. It is obvious that the guilt of these lawbreakers
was determined by a court of qualified judges. Yet the entire
nation is commanded to implement the decision of these men.
It is clear that not only does God authorize men to make
decisions concerning the implementation of His holy law, but
God also instructs the Jewish people to abide by these
decisions.
3 Atonement
The Jewish belief system maintains that it is only
repentance, turning back to God, that can achieve atonement
for sin. The worship of Jesus, can do nothing to help expiate
sin. Christianity on the other hand maintains that it is worship
of Jesus which achieves atonement for sin. Repentance can do
nothing to achieve atonement for sin. (Some prominent
Christian scholars concede the point and admit that repentance
plays an important role in the process of expiating sin. They
believe that it is repentance together with the blood of Jesus
which gains God’s forgiveness. But this opinion is not
accepted by the vast majority of Evangelical Christians.)
The Jewish position is firmly rooted in scripture. The book
of Jonah describes how the wicked people of Nineveh were
threatened with destruction. The inhabitants of that city
repented and as a result, God rescinded the decree of
destruction. The prophet Ezekiel (in chapters 18 and 33) tells
the people ‘and the wicked, should he repent from all his sins
that he has done and he will keep all my statutes and do
justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
All his iniquity shall not be remembered against him, in the
righteousness that he has done he shall live.” These are not
isolated passages in scripture. The concept of repentance is
one of the predominant themes in scripture.
The Christian cannot point to any one verse in scripture
which will tell you that repentance does not bring about the
expiation of sin. Nor can the Christian find a verse which
states that worship of the messiah can achieve atonement. The
Christian attempts to assemble several scriptural themes,
which when pieced together, point to the Christian system of
atonement. This type of argument has an obvious weakness.
Since there is no explicit scriptural quotation to support the
Christian position, then it must rely on the capabilities of
human analysis to draw accurate conclusions from a
complicated conglomeration of scriptural themes. There is
simply too much room for error. When we pit this argument
against the straightforward statements which support the
Jewish position, we are pitting human reason against the
explicit word of God.
When one examines the scriptural themes which the
Christians quote to support their position, it becomes clear that
not only do these themes fail to lend support to the Christian
argument, but these themes actually testify against the
Christian position.
The Christians point to the scriptural theme of the sinful
nature of man. If man is so sinful, then how can his repentance
count for anything before God? Indeed, scripture declares
“how can one born of a woman be righteous?” (Job 15:14)
This sits well with the Jewish belief system. Judaism believes
that indeed every created being must be imperfect before God.
But it is the Christian belief system which stands in
contradiction to this basic scriptural teaching. The entire
Christian belief system is founded upon the notion that one
born of a woman was totally righteous.
The Christian scriptures (Ro. 4) quote the verse in Genesis
15, where it says that God credited Abraham’s faith to him for
righteousness. The Christian argument is that only faith can
count before God as righteousness, and not action. But whom
did Abraham place his faith in? It certainly was not Jesus. It is
the Jew’s faith in the words of the God of Abraham which
leads him to believe all that God has taught. It is the God of
Abraham who said “return to me and I shall return to you”
(Mal. 3), and the Jewish nation takes God on His word.
Christians point to the scriptural concept of blood sacrifice.
The law of Moses spends so much time describing the various
offerings. Does this not demonstrate clearly how blood
sacrifice is central to the atonement process? But what is a
blood sacrifice? A blood sacrifice was an offering brought by a
sinner to God’s altar as an expression of his repentant heart.
Some of the sacrifices were national offerings. These offerings
were paid for, through a fund which was replenished every
year by a collection taken from each individual Jew. These
offerings were brought in the Temple which was built by the
Jewish people. The national offerings were an expression of
the entire nation’s sincere desire to be reconciled with God.
But according to the Christian belief system no action on
man’s part could bring about atonement for sin. The blood
offerings of scripture testify that man’s action can, and do
achieve atonement for sin.
4) Messiah
This is how Moses describes the Messianic era (Deut. 30).
“And it shall be that all these things come upon you, the
blessing and the curse that I have set down before you, and
you will bring it to your heart amongst all the nations that the
Lord your God has driven you. And you shall return unto the
Lord your God and you shall hearken to His voice according
to all that I command you today, you and your children, with
all your heart and with all your soul. And the Lord your God
will return your captivity and He will have compassion upon
you, and he will return and gather you from all the nations
that the Lord your God has scattered you there. If your
outcasts be at the ends of the heaven, from there will the Lord
your God gather you and from there will He fetch you. And the
Lord your God will bring you to the land which your ancestors
inherited, and you shall inherit it, and He will do you good
and He will multiply you more than your ancestors. And the
Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of
your children to love the Lord your God with all your heart
and all your soul for the sake of your life. And the Lord your
God shall place all these curses upon your enemies and upon
those that hate you who have persecuted you. And you will
return and hearken to the voice of the Lord and you shall do
all His commandments that I command you today. And the
Lord your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your
hands, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle,
and in the fruit of your land, for good, for the Lord will turn to
rejoice over you for good just as he rejoiced over your
ancestors. When you hearken to the voice of the Lord your
God to keep His commandments and statutes which are
written in this book of teaching, when you return to the Lord
your God with all your heart and all your soul.”
The prophets of scripture elaborated upon the basic
messianic theme presented by Moses. The prophets describe in
great detail, the ingathering of the Jewish exile, the rebuilding
of the land of Israel, the temple in Jerusalem, peace on earth,
and universal knowledge of God. The prophets provided a
clear and unambiguous picture of the age of the Messiah. The
fact that these prophecies were not fulfilled tells us that the
Messiah has not arrived. But these prophecies tell us more
than that. These prophecies testify that when the Messiah does
arrive he will not be a Christian. What would a Christian
Messiah do in a world in which obedience to God is expressed
through observance of the law of Moses? Who would the
Christian Messiah teach, in a world that looks to the Aaronic
priests for guidance in their observance of God’s law? (Ezekiel
45:23) For whom would the Christian Messiah be providing
atonement, in a world which sees the blood offerings of Moses
being offered in the Jerusalem temple as they were in days of
old? Not only do the Jewish prophets tell us nothing about the
Christian Messiah, but they leave no room for him in their 29
vision of the future.
In the face of the explicit message of the Jewish scriptures,
the missionaries quote these same prophets to lend support for
their version of the role of the Messiah. It will suffice us to
point out that every one of the Christian proof-texts is a
subject of debate, even amongst Christian scholars, as to their
true interpretation. There is no way one can honestly invoke
these difficult and ambiguous passages to support a position
which stands in contradiction to the entire messianic theme
presented by the prophets.
All in all, the message of scripture is quite clear. One who
reads the Jewish scriptures from cover to cover will certainly
encounter many vague and ambiguous passages, but at the
same time he will find clarity concerning the most basic
subjects. Scripture leaves the reader with no doubt that the
Jewish people are the witnesses to whom God chose to reveal
His glory. Scripture leaves the reader with no doubt, that the
law of Moses is a living law which applies to every generation.
Scripture is abundantly clear that sincere repentance achieves
God’s forgiveness for sin. And the picture the Jewish prophets
painted of the Messianic age is a complete portrait which
leaves no room for a dying god who is supposed to be an all
atoning sacrifice.
The traditional Jew was never moved by the Christian
argument. When the Jew rejected Christianity it was with
confidence and with clarity. The Jew’s rejection of
Christianity is founded upon the testimony of an entire nation.
A nation whom God Himself chose as His witnesses. The
clarity of the Jewish rejection is reflected in the words of the
Jewish prophets. This is what empowered our nation to
overcome all obstacles and preserve the message which was
handed to them at Sinai. The message is still intact. Come and
learn.
NOTE: The following section is included, not because it
reflects the attitude of the Jew’s rejection of Christianity. The
Jew never saw a need to examine the testimony of Christianity
in order to expose its emptiness. A clear understanding of the
Jewish testimony is all that is required for the Jew to be
confident in his rejection of Christianity. The reason this
section was included is because it illustrates how an
accusation to the effect, that a given belief system failed in the
transmission of its message can be substantiated.
THE TESTIMONY OF CHRISTIANITY
The formative era of the Christian belief system, was the
time that Jesus revealed his teachings to his disciples. The fact
that the disciples understood that Jesus fulfilled certain
prophecies of the Jewish scriptures, and the miracles that Jesus
allegedly performed, established his credibility in the eyes of
his followers. Once his credibility was established, his
disciples accepted his teachings. The entire Christian belief
system should be contained within the teachings of Jesus.
Judaism rejects the Christian belief system at its foundation.
According to the Jewish belief system, the disciples of Jesus
were mistaken. Christianity claims that Jesus taught that he is
god. The disciples should never have accepted this claim.
Both, the national testimony of the Jewish people, and the
human conscience, equate worship of a human being with
idolatry. All the miracles that the disciples believed that Jesus
performed, and all the prophecies that the disciples thought
that Jesus fulfilled, cannot justify idolatry. Judaism does not
recognize the authority of the founders of Christianity, to
establish the type of belief system which is credited to them.
The formative era of the Jewish belief system, was the time
that the Jewish nation were in the desert, on their way from
Egypt to the land of Israel. The national revelation at Sinai,
and the teachings of Moses, form the basis of the Jewish belief
system. Christianity recognizes the authority of the founders of
Judaism. Christianity acknowledges that whatever God
revealed to the Jewish nation, and that whatever Moses taught,
is absolutely true. Christianity does not reject Judaism at its
foundation. Christianity rejects Judaism, because it questions
the integrity of the transmission of the Jewish belief system.
Christianity accuses Judaism of distorting the original
teachings of their founders. Christianity makes this accusation
despite the fact that;
a) it was God Himself who established the method through
which the Jewish belief system should be transmitted to all
generations,
b) from its inception, the Jewish belief system was in the
hands of a nation,
c) there is only one belief system which claims a direct line of
tradition which goes back to Moses,
d) the Christian accusation is self-contradictory, (Christianity
accepts the Jewish scriptures, while rejecting the testimony of
the Jewish nation which is the only basis for accepting the
veracity of the Jewish scriptures)
e) the scriptural evidence presented to substantiate this
accusation is practically, nonexistent,
f) there is no historical evidence to substantiate the accusation.
(there is no point in Jewish history which Christians can point
to and say “here is where the Jewish method of transmission
went wrong”)
In spite of all this, Christianity places its full faith in this
accusation. If this accusation is false, and the Jewish nation
truly managed to preserve the original message of their
founders, then Christianity is the greatest fraud perpetrated
upon mankind. Christianity admits to this. Still, they are fully
confident that Judaism is a distortion of the teachings of its
original founders.
We will now turn our focus upon the Christian method of
transmission. Which method does Christianity rely on, in order
to transmit its message throughout the ages? How does
Christianity attempt to preserve the original teachings of
Jesus? The Evangelical Christian will answer these questions
by pointing to the books of the Christian scriptures. According
to Evangelical Christianity, these books should have
accurately preserved the message of the founders of
Christianity. We will note that;
a) Jesus, the god of Christianity did not write any of these
books. Neither did he specify that any of these books be
written. In fact Jesus did not authorize anyone to teach in his
name except for his immediate disciples. Jesus expected to
return in the lifetime of his immediate disciples, so he saw no
need in establishing a chain of tradition.
b) The entire Christian tradition is founded upon the testimony
of individuals.
c) There were many groups in the early years of Christianity,
each claiming a direct tradition which goes back to the
disciples of Jesus. Each of these groups had a distinctly
different belief system. Some of these groups had their own
version of the Christian scriptures. (Those divergent gospels
did not survive the centuries of Church censorship.)
In spite of all this, Evangelical Christianity places its full
faith in these books of Christian scripture. Evangelical
Christianity is totally confident that these books represent the
original teachings of Jesus.
An unbiased reading of the Christian scriptures will reveal
that this confidence is misplaced. Not only do the Christian
scriptures reveal that Jesus did not teach Evangelical
Christianity, but these books provide the historical evidence
necessary to substantiate the accusation that the Church
distorted the original teachings of Jesus.
In order to make this accusation against Christianity, it is
not necessary to grant that the Christian scriptures are anything
more than the words of men. We recognize that the Christian
scriptures were written in the later half of the first century of
the common era. These books were written by men who
believed a certain way, and we expect these books to reflect
their beliefs. We do not read these books in order to discover
direct words of truth. We can only hope to gain an
understanding as to how the writers of these books viewed the
world. And more importantly, we will discover how these
writers wanted the world to view them.
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.
SUMMARY
Judaism and Christianity are two different belief systems.
Each one of these belief systems categorically rejects the
fundamental teachings of the other.
Christian missionaries attempt to persuade Jews to abandon
Judaism in favor of Christianity. In their efforts at achieving
this objective, the missionaries try to present logical arguments
which would justify a conversion from Judaism to
Christianity. The typical missionary sales pitch has the
missionary pointing to a verse in the Jewish scriptures which
seems to be supporting the Christian belief system. Essentially,
the missionary argument is that the original teachers of
Judaism (the authors of Jewish scripture) were Christians by
belief. If Jews today are not Christians, it is only because they
have distorted the message of their original teachers. This is
the thrust of the missionary argument.
The Jew cannot accept this argument for several reasons.
1) It was God Himself who established the original Jewish
belief system. The missionary admits as much. It is clear that
God expected the message of Judaism to be available to the
last generations. The means through which God transmitted
His message, is the national testimony of the Jewish people. If
God deemed the living testimony of this nation to be a reliable
method of transmitting His message, the Jew will not differ.
2) The missionary argument has an entire nation
unanimously corrupting the essence of their belief system. In
order for the missionary argument to be true, one must accept
one of the following scenarios. Either a national conspiracy is
involved, or a nation unanimously made the same series of
mistakes. Both of these are statistical improbabilities.
3) The missionary argument is self-contradictory. If the
Jewish nation managed to corrupt the very essence of their
belief system, then there is no reason to accept the sanctity of
Jewish scripture. It is only through the testimony of the Jewish
nation that we know these books to be sacred. If the national
testimony of the Jews cannot be trusted, then there is no way
of knowing that there is any authenticity to the books of
Jewish scripture.
4) The authors of Jewish scripture were quite clear about
their beliefs. And they were not Christians.
As a general rule the Jew felt no need to counter every
missionary argument. However, it often happened that the
Church would force the Jew to respond to each of the
missionary arguments. Many books contain a record the
Jewish responses to the various missionary arguments. Any
decent Jewish library will include some of these books. In
addition, many of the prominent Jewish commentators of
scripture will explain why Jews do not accept the missionary
interpretation of a given verse. (These include, but are not
limited to, the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, and Abarbenel.) It is
not difficult to find Jewish responses to the individual
missionary arguments. Furthermore, many Christian scholars
have come to recognize the dishonesty of the various
missionary applications of Jewish scripture.
There is yet another factor which should be taken into
consideration when we examine the missionary argument.
There is an old Jewish saying which advises “before you point
to the splinter between the eyes of your friend, remove the
beam from between your own eyes”. If the missionary
demands that the Jew search the Jewish scriptures for evidence
that the original teachers of Judaism were not Jews by belief,
then the missionary should first search the Christian scriptures.
Had the missionaries the honesty to undertake this search, they
would discover sufficient evidence to substantiate the theory
that Jesus, James and Peter were not Christians. In place of the
futile attempt to assail the solid foundations of Judaism, the
missionary should examine the breaches in his own house.
How the Gospels were created Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake." (God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)
"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art" (ibid.). "These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record. With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Saviour God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived. Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church.Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century. Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion. The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as "a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains" (History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871). If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave "legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire" (Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86). Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7). Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). The Latinised name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10). The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying "put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint). The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying, "Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645). Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445). The shock discovery of an ancient Bible The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine's Monastery. During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world's oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library). It was locked away in the Vatican's inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library). Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus. A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity's claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence. In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that "...without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God". Dean Burgon's concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document. The revelations of ultraviolet light testing In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and "few scholars had set eyes on it" (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as "the oldest Bible in the world" (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum. Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors. Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938). Forgery in the Gospels When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognized by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions. Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations. Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what isnot written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions. One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying: "The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour". That is because there never was a virgin birth. It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was "the first Gospel written" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40). Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total). The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20). Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisks marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document. The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 5:17). The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons"). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity. The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: "The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia(NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407). "The Great Insertion" and "The Great Omission" Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels", F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive. Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totaling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said: "The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407). Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today's versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarized from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit.) The "Expurgatory Index" As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early "Church Fathers" modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed. Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a). In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine. When Vatican archivists came across "genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index" (Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328). This Church record provides researchers with "grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public" (The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182). Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: "Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released". It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died. In a chapter titled "The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication", he said this (in part):
"The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history ... her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries." (How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)
Supporting Professor Bordeaux's findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, "Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account" Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot's Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759. Gospel authors exposed as imposters There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously: "It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6) The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith. The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious. After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding... "...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one." (Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London) After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have "been altered in many places" and are "not to be accepted as true" (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).
Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, this doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament either because primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the Judaism from which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman mind began to dominate the Church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the Church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2
When Christendom adopted a triune godhead from neighboring triune religious systems, it spawned a serious conundrum for post-Nicene Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge a first century Christian Bible, which was monotheistic, with a fourth century Church which was not? [2]
Just what is Christianity? The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it? Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament. Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament. Tischendorf's conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux's Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century. Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism-a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries. Christianity is an adaptation of Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees, some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis), Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism. Why there are no records of Jesus Christ It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life. This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge: "It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels." (The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874) This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century." (Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)
There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence: the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit.). About the Author: Tony Bushby, an Australian, became a businessman and entrepreneur early in his adult life. He established a magazine-publishing business and spent 20 years researching, writing and publishing his own magazines, primarily for the Australian and New Zealand markets. With strong spiritual beliefs and an interest in metaphysical subjects, Tony has developed long relationships with many associations and societies throughout the world that have assisted his research by making their archives available. He is the author of The Bible Fraud (2001; reviewed in NEXUS 8/06 with extracts in NEXUS 9/01—03), The Secret in the Bible (2003; reviewed in 11/02, with extract, "Ancient Cities under the Sands of Giza", in 11/03) and The Crucifixion of Truth (2005; reviewed in 12/02) and The Twin Deception (2007; reviewed 14/03). Copies of these books are available from the NEXUS website and the Joshua Books website http://www.joshuabooks.com. Source:http://www.exminister.org/Bushby-forged-origins-NewTestament.html
The Secrets of Christianity series has a special episode called Selling Christianity which examines how a persecuted secretive cult grew to defeat the pagan gods, become the official Church of the Roman Empire, and eventually, the world’s largest religion. It delves into Constantine’s true intentions of adopting Christianity by researching the one thing he left in the world that expresses his true consciousness, at that time, the famous Arch of Constantine.[3]
THE RESTORATION OF THE
ORIGINAL BIBLE FAITH AS PRESERVED THROUGHOUT THE AGES BY THE
MECHOQECK OF GOD - HIS APPOINTED INTERPRETERS OF HIS WORD - THE
RABBINIC ORDINATION.
Those who still disapprove of and reject this Divinely
mandated authority, have to ask themselves: WHY do so many individual
Bible students across the Globe come to the SAME one CONTROVERSIAL
conclusion. It just is uncannily strange but true! And it
was thus prophesied!!!! It would be the GREATEST event this
World has ever beheld: When God restores His Originally
intended re-united 12-Tribed Kingdom of Israel - under the Original
Word of God. THIS is what ancient 10-Israel rebelled against -
receiving for this rejection a "Divorce Order" from God.
Modern 10-Israel still greatly cling to the same rebellion,
preferring to make their own interpretations of His Word, rejecting
His mandated Interpretors.
Friends - the Truth is so elementary: Just
consider how close your own interpretations are to that of the
Rabbis.
But people will still argue, still reject, still
condemn anything Rabbinic. Is that not conspicious in itself?
What evil forces attempt to dissuade seekers of this glaring fact?
This long winded introduction all leads up to my
response to Karin's letter in which she condemns my "rejection
of the NT as the Word of God."
Karin, you are misreading and contorting my statements
and explanations. You summarily reject the real evidence and then
build your conclusions on foundations that YOU prefer, rather than
the True facts.
Let me once more confirm
the position regarding the NT as I personally understand
it:
The NT itself does NOT anywhere claim to be "The
Word of God" but persistently claims the "Old Testament"
(Tanach and Torah) to be THE Word of God. Please provide such
confirmation from the NT that it is indeed "The Word of God"..
Where the NT confirms the Tanach, it is
acceptable. Where it contradicts the Tanach (as through the
statements and teachings of Paul against the Torah), then it is in
error and we have to reject that from the NT - NOT reject the Tanach
as Christianity generally does.
Following are some extracts from your letter
Karin
wrote:
Subject: Re: NT is The Word of God
"I see no Old Testament - New
Testament. I see the inspired Word of G_Das
a message to His Own whom He foreknew and did predestinate to become
the sons and the daughters of the MOST HIGH ... YEHOVAH
SHAMMA
Luke
21:33
The Lord either preserved His word or He didn't. I believe He did
and you believe He didn't. Don't tell me you believe God preserved
His word. It demoralizes the saint and glorifies the scholars of
today who think they have to find God's word for us. It strengthens
the hand of the evildoers. Preachers, get up and preach the Word of God. God preserved His
word to preach, not to alter, or tear apart. This type of
intellectual preaching, that is common today, pleases the flesh and
puffs up the ego. It does not change lives. The Bible says, "If
the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Psalm
11:3. Trust in the Bible is one of the essential foundations today
for the church to operate according to YaH's' perfect
plan. Old and New .. "TORAH" and ..
"prophecy" Shalom Peace And Love,"
Karin
OvadYah
responds:
Karin, YOU see OT & NT as one. Fact
is that they are TWO. This is proven by the Church having
greatly neglected the "OT", regarding it as "done
away", "old and out dated, no longer fully applicable".
You seem to agree with us that the OT is NOT done away with.
But, they are
certainly TWO Testaments, in reality and in the minds of people.
Now the question is, do these two agree fully with each other?
We may disagree on this, but NO, they dont! For instance:
Paul teaches against circumcision, and repents about that in
his final stages (Acts 22 - 24)
NT teaches that "Torah is
nailed to the Cross, no longer applicable" - while it also
teaches that it still applies.
All
Christians are NOT ignorant. They reject the Torah because THAT
is what the NT teaches!
Is it not
truly strange, that believers would easily discard the "OT"
- but, they would fight to the death for the authority of the NT even
when it flatly rejects OT principles!?
We each
have to choose for ourselves. For myself, I will stick to the
Tanach, that part of the Bible that Jesus Himself referred to as
the Basis of all Truth.
No!
I do NOT reject the NT out rightly. Yes, I do NOT regard it as
the "Word of God" - for that we have the Tanach, the
Torah. Where it confirms and expounds on the Tanach, I do
accept it.
I hope
that clarifies the matter.
Blessings! [4]
The
Challenge:
Simply & honestly answer these questions: WITHOUT
taking anything out of context,(full context) mistranslating, or
imposing a pre-conceived notion. (All chapter and verse numbers are
according to Christian bibles.) To
Evangelical Christians, Messianic Jews and Hebrew-Christians to
all…
Why
does the subject of 2 Sam. 7.14 “commit iniquity,” if, according
to Hebrews 1.5, this is Jesus?
Why does the speaker in Psalms
41.4 say, “I have sinned against Thee,” if, according to John
13.18, this is Jesus?
Why does the speaker in Psalms 69.5
mention his “folly” and his “wrongs” if, according to John
15.25, John 2.17, Romans 15.3, and John 19.28, this is Jesus?
Why
is the speaker in Psalms 69.31 (who we have already established is
Jesus) declaring that praise and thanksgiving will please God better
than a sacrifice??????? Of all places for Jesus to bring this up
(which would be strange enough in any event), isn’t this the
strangest, right when he’s on the cross??????
Why does God,
in Jer. 31:29-30, make a point of stressing that “everyone will die
for his own iniquity” – immediately before introducing the new
covenant, whereby Jesus will die for everyone else’s iniquity?
Isn’t that a rather strange way for the “tutor to lead us to
Christ?”
When does the new covenant of Jer. 31:31 come into
effect? If it was 2,000 years ago, why hasn’t the first 3/4 of
verse 34 happened yet?
Why will there be sin sacrifices when
the messiah comes, when the New Testament is adamant that there won’t
be? (Hebrews 9:28; Heb. 10:10,12,14,18; Ezekiel 3:18,19,21,22,25;
Ezek.44: 27, 29; Ezek. 45:17,20,22,23,25)
Why is Torah law
going forth from Zion in the messianic age, in the sight of all the
nations of the world, instead of Jesus, if the law is a curse and
Jesus has fulfilled and replaced it? (Isaiah 2.3, Micah 4.2)
Why
are the Jews keeping (DOING) the Torah law in the messianic age, if
it is a curse and Jesus has fulfilled and replaced it? (Ezek.
37.24)
Why is no one who is uncircumcised IN THE FLESH allowed
to enter the temple in the messianic age, if “neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision means anything,” according to Paul? (Gal.5.6,
Ezek. 44.7) Whose opinion should I trust, Paul’s or God’s?
Why
does “forever” have an expiration date in Christianity? (Romans
10.4; Ps. 119: 44, 111, 152, 160, 172, 142; Deut. 29.29)
How
can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah through Davidic lineage if
he did not have a human father? Can the “Holy Spirit” be of the
seed of David?
How can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah
through Davidic lineage, even through Joseph, if Joseph came through
the cursed line of Jeconiah? (Jer. 22:28-30, Matt. 1.11,12)
How
can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah through Davidic lineage,
even through Mary, if she came from Nathan, the wrong son of David,
as well as from the cursed line? (Luke 3:31, 1 Chron. 22:9,10, Luke
3:27)
How could both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies be
correct, and divinely inspired, even if they are of two different
people, if they diverge (at Nathan and Solomon) and then come back
together (at Shealtiel)? How can two brothers have the same
grandchildren???
Why don’t the genealogies in the New
Testament agree with each other, or with 1 Chronicles 3, which came
first and CANNOT be incorrect?
Why is Paul so anxious for you
to not study the genealogies? (1 Tim.1:4, Titus 3:9-11)
Why is
Hebrews 8.9 wrong about what God said in Jer. 31.32?
Why is
Hebrews 10.5 wrong about what God said in Psalm 40.6?
Why is 2
Corinthians 3 wrong about what God said in Exodus 34.29-35?
Why
is John 19.37 wrong about what God said in Zech 12.10?
Why are
Romans 9.33 and 2 Pet. 2.8 wrong about what God said in Isaiah
28.16?
Why is Romans 10.6-8 wrong about what God said in Deut.
30.12-14? Why does it leave out Deut. 30.11, and the last half of
verses 12, 13, and 14???
Why is Romans 11:26-27 wrong about
what God said in Isaiah 59:20-21?
Why is Matt. 12.21 wrong
about what God said in Isaiah 42.4? Why does he leave out what it
really says – “He will not be disheartened or crushed until he
has established justice in the earth”?
Why is Matt. 1.12
wrong about what God said in 1 Chron. 3.19?
Why is Matt. 2.6
wrong about what God said in Micah 5.2?
Why is Luke 4:18-19
wrong about what God said in Isaiah 61:1-2?
In Romans 9:24-26,
why does Paul leave out the first part of Hosea 1.10, which tells us
that the verses he is quoting (the second half of Hosea 1.10, and
Hosea 2.23), refer to the sons of Israel?
Why does Matt. 2.15
leave out the first half of Hosea 11.1, which says that Israel is
God’s son?
Where in the Hebrew scriptures is the verse, “And
he shall be called a Nazarene,” quoted in Matthew 2.23?
How
can it be possible that the holy and inspired men of the New
Testament were so ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures?
Why
doesn’t Jesus himself know his own scripture, if he’s God and he
wrote it? (Math. 23.35; Zech 1.1,2; 2 Chron 24.20,21)
Why is
Jesus wrong in Math. 5.43 about what God said in Lev. 19.18?
Why
does Jesus change God’s law (Math. 5.32, Luke 16.18 – declaring
every legally divorced woman an adulteress, and every man married to
a legally divorced woman an adulterer), if “I did not come to
abolish the law,” and “whoever annuls one of the least of these
commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven?” (Math. 5.17,19)
Why do most Christian
translators lie about what God said in Hosea 14.2, and change His
words, “take away all iniquity… that we may present our lips as
bulls” (demonstrating that prayer substitutes for sacrifice) to “…
the fruit of our lips?”
Why do Christians never mention
verses like Hosea 14.2 or 1 Kings 8:44-52 or 2 Sam 12:13 or Lev.
5:11-13 or Ps. 32.5 or Isaiah 6.6-7 which demonstrate that one does
not need a blood sacrifice to have their sins forgiven, or verses
like Proverbs 21.3 or Psalms 40.6 or Hosea 6.6 or Psalms 69:30-31 or
1 Sam. 15.22 which say clearly that God actually PREFERS other
methods of atonement to blood sacrifice, or Jeremiah 7:22-23 which
goes so far as to say that God NEVER EVEN COMMANDED US ABOUT
SACRIFICES???
Why are there numerous stories in the torah of
people who sinned, and were forgiven through prayer and repentance –
WITHOUT A SACRIFICE, such as David in 2 Sam 12:13, or the city of
Nineveh in Jonah – and not a single story, ever, of someone who
sinned and gave a sacrifice in order to be forgiven?
How can
Jesus be both the high priest (per Paul in Hebrews), who comes from
the tribe of Levi, and the messiah, who comes from the tribe of
Judah?
How can Jesus be the Passover lamb for the gentiles,
especially the uncircumcised, if outsiders were forbidden to partake
of it? (Ex. 12:43,45,48)
Why is the New Testament so concerned
about the laws of the paschal lamb when it comes to the 2nd half of
Ex. 12.46 (see Jn. 19.36), but not at all concerned with these laws
when it comes to Ex. 12: 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,44, the first half of
46, or 48?
What good is Jesus as a sin sacrifice to the
intentional sinner, since (with one exception, Lev. 6.2,3) the sin
sacrifices were only for the unintentional sinner? (Lev. 4:
2,13,22,27; 5:15,18)
How can Zech. 12.10 be referring to
Jesus’ crucifixion, as John 19.37 says it is, when Zechariah is
clearly describing an end-time apocalyptic war that has not yet taken
place?
How can Zechariah be making a “dual” prophecy, when
according to the Christians, this passage refers to God being
pierced? Is he going to be pierced again when he returns in glory?
Did The Original Followers of Jesus Vanish Just As Rabbi Gamliel Predicted?
Leviticus chapter 19
.jpg)