Christian: if New Testament is false, why not Hebrew Bible too?
A Christian told me the other day that I was being hypocritical by questioning New Testament’s validity as inspired scripture. I was warned that I should not cast stones at the New Testament, that is to claim that it is based on lies, since there are atheist critics of the “Old Testament” (the Jewish Bible) who assert that it is just as false and full of discrepancies as the New Testament.
Here’s my reply:
You have a major problem on your hands by questioning the authenticity of the Tanakh, in as much as your religion claims it to be correct and authentic and relies on its authenticity to authenticate itself. On the other hand, Judaism doesn’t rely on the [Greek] Testament for validation, just as it doesn’t rely on the Quran or the book of Mormon, both of which also claim to be faithfully based on the Tanakh and without error.
This means that one only needs to show that the New Testament (along with Quran and the book of Mormon) with its claim that it bases itself wholly on the Tanakh is false. A Jew doesn’t need to prove to a Christian that the Tanakh is true, only that the New Testament misuses and distorts the Tanakh by claiming things that the Tanakh itself doesn’t support or outright rejects and even explicitly forbids.
P.S. A commenter has aptly termed this sort of Christian argumentation as a “suicide bomb argument”, since in defending the New Testament against Jewish objections by asking why should the Old be trusted it forces the Christian to completely undercut the foundation of his own faith and to take on a role normally reserved for an atheist and skeptic.
Daily Minyan 
Hi Gene, I have a xtian friend that tells me that the Masoretic text is not reliable. Regardless if I tell him that only the 5 first books of the Septuagint were translated before Jesus and that there was no proper way of translation (anyone could have change the text), he is persuaded that the Jews removed the quotes that proves Jesus (Psalm 22 and other places). It leaves xtians with the possibility to chose whatever translation fits their doctrine. Since I changed my mind about Jesus, my friend has bought a Septuagint and wants to buy an Aramaic bible. I have seen a lot of different possible translation in footnote in the JPS (I am waiting to received my Artscroll Stone Bible), this is good, but I really think that the Masoretic should be taken as authoritative. It’s just another tactic from xtian to explain all the discrepancies from the Non-Testament. Just like Psalm 40:6.
Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened;
Hebrews 10:5
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
I told my friend that I was going to read Psalm 40 in context and see if it fits Jesus, and of course, how could this apply to Jesus anyway “my sins have overtaken me”!
“he is persuaded that the Jews removed the quotes that proves Jesus”
Ah, the old conspiracy of Jews against Jesus, one that has Jews, who are renown for faithful transmission of biblical texts, altering G-d’s words. It’s interesting that Islam makes the same accusation against Jews in regards to their own religion, that Jews removed prophecies about Muhammad from their Hebrew Bible and that the Jewish scriptures have been corrupted to write him out of it! (Christianity and Islam share a lot of other similarities, something I will touch upon in a future post).
“I really think that the Masoretic should be taken as authoritative.”
And apparently most of Christianity also views Masoretic as authoritative, since virtually all modern Christian translations of the Hebrew Bible are based on Masoretic text, dropping the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate as their sources. This explains why in the very same bible one today can find drastically divergent texts when comparing the “Old Testament” quotes used by the authors of the New Testament (who relied on Church-authorized Greek translations).
“This explains why in the very same bible one today can find drastically divergent texts when comparing the “Old Testament” quotes used by the authors of the New Testament”
Obviously, that cause xtian a big problem. How come the quotes from the old testament says something totally different? Which one is inspired? It cannot be both, then they have to choose the non-testament quote as inspire. If all the writers of the non-testament were Jews (except Luke), why did they use the Septuagint anyway? Didn’t they know Hebrew? The Septuagint was a translation, not the inspired word of G-d. Translations are useful, but if the people knew Hebrew, why would they have used a Greek translation instead of translating directly from the Hebrew to their Greek audiences?
“Obviously, that cause xtian a big problem. ”
Not a problem for a messianic – the Christian bible “obviously” uses “midrash” (sometimes, in-between authoritative scripture)!
I can see Dr Brown seeking the Talmudic text and all the Jewish literature to take a passage out of context to prove that a rabbi could have, maybe, think like he does… I promised my friend (the same one as above), after I told him that I did not believe in Jesus, that I would read the 5 books of Dr Brown. This man likes to take things out of context!
“I promised my friend (the same one as above), after I told him that I did not believe in Jesus, that I would read the 5 books of Dr Brown.”
A former “messianic” Jew I know who returned to Judaism about the same time as me had all 5 Brown books shipped to him by someone anonymous a short time later. (We have recycling in our area, so they were put to good use).
I feel bad that he actually paid for them. This is plain awful writing bias from a non-testament point of view.
Well, since some anonymous messianic paid for it to have it shipped to my friend, that’s not so bad – in fact, it’s good – less money available to ship Brown books to other Jews:)
I couldn’t stand Brown stuff even during my messianic days. He reminded me a lot of the Catholic Jewish converts who organized forced debates with Jews in the medieval times.
I think he is ecumenical. Also, he likes to quote anti-Semite like Augustine in his book. He also has a nice interview with his brother Beny Hinn… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPh61Vtbxd4
That makes him an un-trustable person even for xtians. :)
Gene, the question is, once you disprove the Christian Bible and tradition, how do you validate the Tanakh’s claims independent of the believing Jewish community’s testimony?
Any Jewish person when faced with the Christian bible would say outright that it would be ridiculous to accept the Christian claims, just because The Christians say their claims are true. Likewise, it would be silly to accept the Torah’s claims just because Jews say they true.
So, what do you do personally to check the validity of the claims the community makes? The reason I ask, is because people often hold Christians to this standard of evidence, ( namely, independent verification.)
It’s also a bit of a slippery slope to say that you don’t have to prove Tanakh, but only to disprove Christianity. Once you have subjected the Christian claim to a standard of inquiry, the Tanakh needs to be subjected to that standard too, for the sake of intellectual honesty.
CR, no, I would not have to prove the Tanakh because the Jewish Bible doesn’t claim to base itself on the validity of scriptures of another religion and nor does it claim that that other religion is in error about interpreting its own scriptures. This is uniquely Christianity’s (and Islam’s) predicament.
Perhaps you mean that Jews should prove the claimed authorship of biblical texts or that the events and miracles in it indeed took place? Again, we don’t need to do that, but we are ready to show that religions that rely on our own scriptures missuse them.
Here comes Concerned Reader with the ol’ christian “suicide bomb” argument!
The suicide bomb argument goes like this: Once a christian realizes that they have no case for believing in jesus, since the NT blatantly contradicts the Tanach, the christian gets so desperate that the christian attempts to slander the authenticity of the Tanach and even G-d Himself! (Chas V’Shalom!)
This phenomenon is unfortunately very common…Merrill has tried it frequently on the Rosh Pina Project blog and Concerned Reader is trying it right now on Rabbi Blumenthal’s blog:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/an-open-letter-to-brother-gilbert/#comment-16862
The christians like Concerned Reader and Merrill who make this suicide bomb argument are essentially admitting that their belief in G-d is not dependent on His Torah, but rather, upon jesus.
Think about what that means: Even the NT writers did not need to verify jesus’s supposed “death and resurrection” in order for them to believe in the authenticity of the Torah as being a divinely inspired work of G-d. They believed in the words of the Tanach independent of jesus’s existence, just as other Jews did hundreds and hundreds of years prior!
Concerned Reader, here’s the big secret: Jews certainly do have Emunah. No one is denying that. But when you claim to devote your Emunah to Tanach, but simultaneously claim to have emunah in a book which contradicts the Tanach, in this case, the NT, you put yourself in an absurd position of idiocy.
You as a christian, claim to believe in the authenticity of the Tanach independent of the NT…But after further investigation, you basically admit that the only reason why you believe in the Tanach is because of what is said in the NT…But since what is written in the NT clearly contradicts what is said in the Tanach, this means that the NT must be false…Why? Because the claims of the NT concerning jesus’s supposed “messiahship” are completely dependent on the authenticity of the Tanach! In other words, if the Tanach is false, then the NT is false. But if the NT is false, this does not prove that the Tanach is false…
You appear to know this, as you wrote this on Rabbi Blumenthal’s blog. That said, you must either be in delusional denial at this point or you’re just flat out trolling…
Your argument is akin to you claiming that you believe that the Egyptians built the pyramids, but at the same time, you believe that aliens from another planet came down and built more pyramids in Egypt later…
Now, lets say we are both historians who claim to adhere to the accepted academic historical narrative concerning the construction of the pyramids by the Egyptians…Now, lets say I agree with you that the Egyptians built the pyramids, but I find it hard to believe that aliens built more pyramids later, so I ask you for proof for this incredulous claim.
So you attempt to give me proof that the aliens built the pyramids, but in the process, you start making claims that contradict the historical narrative concerning the Egyptians building certain pyramids, claiming that aliens built the Giza pyramids, despite the fact that the historical narrative says that the Egyptians built these pyramids…
This means that you reject the historical narrative in favor of your alien theory about the pyramids…
Now, lets say I call you out on this and say that your story contradicts the historical narrative of the pyramids being built by the Egyptians, even though you originally claimed to accept that narrative…But instead of attempting to defend your position, you shoot back at me:
“Well can you show me proof that the Egyptians built the pyramids?”
You were the one who originally claimed to believe in the historical narrative that the Egyptians built the pyramids, so either you reject that narrative in favor of your narrative, or you’re outright kooky!
You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Concerned Reader.
Shalom
It’s not a suicide bomb, it’s an honest question. If Christianity and Islam are proven wrong because nothing they have is substantial, what better evidence do you have to prove your system objectively?
It’s not a crime for a Christian who is only ever exposed to a Christian worldview to believe in G-d based solely on Christianity independent of rabbinic Judaism, it’s a 2000 year old community. These people may have come to faith in G-d only through their exposure to Christianity. What fault is it of theirs? It’s an honest question Yehuda after you have blown Christianity apart. What better evidence do you bring for your belief system that doesn’t rely on your community?
But if the NT is false, this does not prove that the Tanach is false… your right Yehuda, but not proving something false, does not mean you have proved anything is true. Christians don’t just rest their faith on their own testimony, or scripture, but on the historical experience of a societal transition from polytheistic to monotheistic culture that took,place because of the Church. If that is insufficient, what is more sufficient that Tanach brings?
Concerned Reader, those christians who claim to believe in “god” solely because of their exposure to jesus in the NT do not believe in Torah in and of itself. They do not believe in Hashem, rather they believe in the false god of christianity, namely jesus.
This is an anachronistic way of thinking. It’s somewhat akin to saying that the only reason you believe in the authenticity of Algebra is because of Calculus: You cannot accept Calculus independent of investigating what Algebra is…Algebra is an integral part of Calculus.
Likewise, a christian sounds like an idiot when he or she tries to claim that they believe that jesus is the Messiah of the Tanach without even learning what the Tanach says in the first place!
But unfortunately for the christian, unlike calculus and algebra, the NT and the Tanach are not complementary to each other…Rather, they contradict each other…
” but on the historical experience of a societal transition from polytheistic to monotheistic culture that took,place because of the Church”
CR, if we are basing our truth on the so called “experience of a societal transition” Islam then has an even greater claim to be truth, even much more so than Christianity, since societies under its influence can be claimed to truly go from polytheism to monotheism, while Christianity’s prime focus is the figure of a man-god along side the G-d of Israel, which is still polytheistic by definition (vehement protests by Christians notwithstanding).
And like Gene said, Concerned Reader, the Torah is in a unique position because it does not rely on previous written scriptures to “verify” its authenticity. Your NT claims to be the supposed “fulfillment” of the Tanach, so it is held to the standard of being consistent with the Tanach. Since the NT is not consistent with the Tanach, it fails the standard and is deemed falsehood…
But the Torah does not claim to be the continuation or “fulfillment” of any prior work. Thus, it is in a unique position. It claims originality from its original source, Hashem.
If you don’t believe that, that’s your prerogative. But you look like an idiot going around trying to claim that the NT “fulfills” Torah when you don’t even have enough faith that the Torah could be authentic in a world without jesus being the Messiah, which by the way, is the reality!
As I said, your disproof of Christianity works fine given your contextual arguments from Tanakh Yehuda, I understand that. Now that it’s gone and dust, how do you show that the Torah’s own claims are true with independent verification? I’m seriously asking you this. If Jesus’ followers were so easily fooled by a false messiah, false miracles, a large following, etc. how is the outsider to know that all of Judaism hasn’t got it wrong also with respect to its own claims?
Your Egyptian aliens example is ludicrous. The difference between your rhetorical hypithetical Egyptian pyramid alien thesis, and the fact of Christianity’s emergence is that everyone, (Jews, Christians, secular scholars, atheists, ancient Roman historians, etc.) know that Christianity as a movement did in fact emerge from second temple Judaism In the 1st century in Israel.
It’s not a question of “did some Jews believe crazy nonsense junk about Jesus, that they later taught the Gentiles?” it’s a question of how and why did these Jews believe this? We don’t need the Christians to exist at all as a community to know that certain ideas had roots and resonances in Judaism, and that in certain circumstances, these ideas may be mistakenly, yet strikingly similar to what later became Christianity.
Gene, if Islam is purer monotheism than Christianity, and we both agree that Islam emerges without relying on Jewish or Christian scripture directly, (minus some few quotations in Islamic apologetics,) what does that say for Israel’s role as a light to the nations? The whole Islamic faith sprang from a non Jew totally unaffiliated with the Tanakh and unaffiliated with the Jewish people. If that is purer monotheism, then the Hellenistic philosophers like Plato and Aristotle also were purer monotheists. Why the Tanakh, why the mitzvot, if you do not strictly need them to be a monotheistic believer in the one G-d?
“we both agree that Islam emerges without relying on Jewish or Christian scripture directly, (minus some few quotations in Islamic apologetics”
CR, I don’t agree with that at all – Islam relied MASSIVELY on both the Tanakh and the New Testament. It borrowed heavily from both, changing whatever didn’t suit its agenda while accusing both Jews and Christians of corrupting their own texts.
“The whole Islamic faith sprang from a non Jew totally unaffiliated with the Tanakh and unaffiliated with the Jewish people.”
Some scholars have posited that Muhammad may have encountered some non-trinitarian Jewish Christians, which helps explain his views on both Judaism and Christianity, including Jesus non-divinity.
“Why the Tanakh, why the mitzvot, if you do not strictly need them to be a monotheistic believer in the one G-d?”
Who said you don’t need them? It’s not about a mere belief, it’s about acting in accordance to your belief – righteously. What defines “righteousness” if not G-d’s own commands? That’s where both Christianity and Islam (although monotheistic) failed – they ignored G-d’s commands, seeking to establish their own.
But you look like an idiot going around trying to claim that the NT “fulfills” Torah when you don’t even have enough faith that the Torah could be authentic in a world without jesus being the Messiah, which by the way, is the reality!
That’s Fine Yehuda. Now, if you are right, given how easy it was to fool those billions of people with Christianity (including those early Jews who followed Yeshu) and later Muhammad with Islam, what evidence do you have to substantiate your belief that isn’t based on your belief system. Can you prove your faith without an appeal to the Torah itself?
Muhammad likely encountered Nestorian gentile Christians Gene, not Jewish Christians. It’s likely he knew some Jews through moving on trade routes, and these Jews were aware of Some Mishna, and some Aggadadic content that they shared with Muhammad it was 500 CE after he emerged.
Also, the Quran has similarities to the Tanakh and New Testament, but it quotes neither text as an authority directly ever, as it says we have corrupted revelation. Quotes for proof from the bible are only in Hadith which post date Muhammad. I know this, because I have read the Quran. The Quran has certain aggadic and halachic parallels, (Christianity has far more in terms of content) but it makes no direct use of either the Tanakh or the NT. The Quran calls Mary (Jesus’ mother) the sister of Aaron. It also says Jesus was never crucified. The entire historical record contradicts this claim independent of either gnostic Christian or Islamic claims. So, my question still stands.
Think about what that means: Even the NT writers did not need to verify jesus’s supposed “death and resurrection” in order for them to believe in the authenticity of the Torah as being a divinely inspired work of G-d.
Yehuda, is it to their credit to believe in something without direct evidence that it is true? Look at what this meant for the disciples. It made them gullible and susceptible to lies taught by Jesus.
Perhaps you mean that Jews should prove the claimed authorship of biblical texts or that the events and miracles in it indeed took place? Again, we don’t need to do that, YES, BOTH!
why don’t you need to do that? Because Jews believe it’s all true? I do indeed mean that Jews should have to prove that the events described in the Scripture took place, absolutely!
This is the case especially in light of Judaism’s own highlighting of Christianity’s deceptions and flaws. You have dismissed all lines of offered Christian and Muslim evidence for their acceptance of their worldviews (including the evidence found outside of their traditions, including Roman references, and sectarian Jewish literature, and concepts.)
Since these evidences are rightly rejected, Judaism should (for the sake of its intellectual honesty and brevity,) have better elucidated evidence that is clearer. Where is the evidence independent from your faith claim?
Concerned Reader, if you are asking this question from an atheistic/agnostic point of view, then I might be able to take you more seriously…I disagree with atheists/agnostics in their skepticism concerning the authenticity of the Tanach. However, at the very least, they are being more intellectually consistent with their skepticism.
But I’m not convinced that you are approaching it from that standpoint. You seem to be trying to cling to a glimmer of hope that since christianity has “Jewish roots,” this gives it credence for being true, independent of whether or not the tenants of christianity contradict the Tanach…I can’t take you seriously if you honestly think that christianity stands on its own, despite the fact that the Tanach does not align with christianity’s theology concerning G-d and the Messiah…Having “Jewish roots” does not automatically make the word “kosher.” I don’t know why you cannot understand this. It really isn’t that complicated…
While I disagree with atheists and agnostics on their assessment of the Tanach, I find that they are at least being skeptical in a genuine sense; they really aren’t convinced that the Torah is true. This is where the Emunah conversation makes sense. I cannot definitely prove any of what I believe through scientific/academic rigor. However, I can discuss why I believe what I believe and speak about the historical context in an open, honest fashion. But ultimately, it does come down to Emunah, and I freely submit to that.
But when a christian like you tries to play the part of the atheist/agnostic, that’s just dirty and low…You have an ulterior motive, as you are not genuinely skeptical about your religious beliefs simply because they do not meet the demands of the academic standards of secular studies…You are simply motivated by attempting to falsely call G-d fear Jews as having a “double standard” when evaluating christian claims of jesus of which you will seemingly never reject, even if the Tanach that you claim to believe in proves jesus to be a false messiah/god…
But in reality, Concerned Reader, it is the christian who holds the double standard…You are the one who has now temporarily taken off your “faith in jesus hat” and put on your “atheist/agnostic hat.” This is disingenuous argumentation. It is a double standard for you to claim to be a believer in the Tanach as the divinely inspired word of G-d while simultaneously demanding Jews to prove that the Tanach is true using scientific/academic standards of which atheists/agnostics hold as the gold standard of truth…
Hopefully, you can own up to the truth and stop arguing your religion from such a disingenuous and absurd position.
Shalom
No Yehuda, I’m literally asking you, in all seriousness. Take me seriously, as I’m being serious. Your contextual arguments work, but what evidence do you have?
My Christian faith has been based on the historical connections I have noted to you numerous times, as present and seen through time. It’s not intellectually honest to have blind faith in things that can’t reasonably be demonstrated as plausible. Faith is a feeling, and as such is largely subjective.
Concerned Reader, I already gave you the answer above:
While I disagree with atheists and agnostics on their assessment of the Tanach, I find that they are at least being skeptical in a genuine sense; they really aren’t convinced that the Torah is true. This is where the Emunah conversation makes sense. I cannot definitely prove any of what I believe through scientific/academic rigor. However, I can discuss why I believe what I believe and speak about the historical context in an open, honest fashion. But ultimately, it does come down to Emunah, and I freely submit to that.
So yes, I’m asking agnostically
Concerned Reader, you are playing the atheist/agnostic now…Like I said christian like you tries to play the part of the atheist/agnostic, that’s just dirty and low…You have an ulterior motive, as you are not genuinely skeptical about your religious beliefs simply because they do not meet the demands of the academic standards of secular studies…You are simply motivated by attempting to falsely call G-d fear Jews as having a “double standard” when evaluating christian claims of jesus of which you will seemingly never reject, even if the Tanach that you claim to believe in proves jesus to be a false messiah/god…
But in reality, Concerned Reader, it is the christian who holds the double standard…You are the one who has now temporarily taken off your “faith in jesus hat” and put on your “atheist/agnostic hat.” This is disingenuous argumentation. It is a double standard for you to claim to be a believer in the Tanach as the divinely inspired word of G-d while simultaneously demanding Jews to prove that the Tanach is true using scientific/academic standards of which atheists/agnostics hold as the gold standard of truth…
You clearly don’t accept science/academic standards as the gold standard of truth, otherwise, you wouldn’t be a christian! You would be an atheist/agnostic!
So you are being disingenuous in your argumentation…
Shame on you.
Does it bother you in the slightest that you don’t have much basis in scientific or academic rigor? The Tanach after all makes genuine historical claims.
It doesn’t because I have Emunah.
You on the other hand, claim to have faith in two contradictory religions…That’s called insanity…
I’m not playing man. I’m being serious. I’ve never made an attempt at taking Jews from the Torah. I thought I had sound historical basis. If that’s not the case, I’m genuinely curious how Emunah holds for you when the Torah makes claims that should be testable vis history.
The Kuzarie Principle establishes a certain degree of credibility of Judaism over other world religions such as christianity, islam, hinduism, etc.
However, it does not meet the requirements of “proof” that the scientific/historical/academic/secular studies demand. So relatively speaking, Judaism is our best bet using the Kuzarie Principle.
But I don’t necessarily expect an atheist/agnostic to buy into Judaism based off of this alone. Emunah is a core component.
you are not genuinely skeptical about your religious beliefs simply because they do not meet the demands of the academic standards of secular studies…You are simply motivated by attempting to falsely call G-d fear Jews as having a “double standard”
No Yehuda, I am genuinely skeptical about them. In fact, I’m probably the only Christian I know of who didn’t rest his faith on a miracle claim. To me, even if you could prove Jesus rose from death, there wouldn’t be any way to test the manner of its occurrence. To me, Christianity’s impact in destroying European idolatry made it more plausible than a resurrection claim. What I mean is, the Tanakh said clearly that a messiah would come, and that Gentiles would accept Hashem and the Bible.The odds of this happening at all in world history seemed astronomical. It did happen though with Christianity. That fact, seemed to me to demonstrate the reality of providence, and that, I had faith in. You have disproved that as plausible, so yes, I’m very skeptical. I’m not pulling wool Yehuda, I’m being serious.
It didn’t happen Concerned Reader, and until you acknowledge the fact that worshipping a pagan man god named jesus is not the same thing as worshipping the one true G-d of Israel, I’m simply going to have to label you as a delusional fool, if that is your “standard of evidence.”
Your christianity and jesus worship is no different than the Israelites who worshipped Micah’s idol in the Book of Judges, Chapter 17. This was a “Jewish idea” as even Levitical priests served this idol…
This is a microcosm of christianity. You can claim that jesus has “Jewish roots” but at the end of the day, worshipping jesus and calling it “Torah/Jewish” is no different than worshipping Micah’s idol, putting a Levitical priest in front of it and calling it “Torah/Jewish.”
The nations worship an idol, Concerned Reader, and that idol’s name is jesus/yeshu!
And Concerned Reader, what I find to be a bigger implausibility is the very existence of the Jews today:
“If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvellous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”
-Mark Twain
I can admit that Jesus worship is a Jewish Born, Jewish formed idolatry (that tries very hard doctrinally to harmonize with Monotheism.) I was explaining to you what I thought seemed plausible to me as opposed to most who focus on Jesus’ resurrection.
I don’t find Jewish existence implausible in the least.
Well Concerned Reader, this is a night that will go down in the books! Thank you for finally acknowledging that the worship of jesus/yeshu is idolatry!
Look, I understand how hard it is to shift off of the paradigm that you have held so dearly to all these years…But jesus worship just isn’t authentic Torah. I’m elated to hear you finally acknowledge this as well!
My style of argumentation is harsh…Yes I know. But this is because I know that you are capable of understanding who Hashem truly is and who He is not.
I get that this is probably a difficult time for you, and I sympathize with that. But you should be proud finally break free of the falsehood of jesus. Hashem is awesome…Truly truly awesome!
You know Yehuda, thoug I was raised Christian I wasn’t raised trinitarian. I didn’t worship him as deity.
It’s hard to believe at all, when there isn’t historical verification.
Yehuda, how do you feel about those who follow Jesus exclusively as a rabbi, (not divine, or otherwise Christian in any way?) just curious.
Since it is hard for me to take most of the NT seriously at all, given its constant contextual abuse of the Tanach, it is hard for me to really take that position too seriously.
But I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, since a lot of what jesus taught (according to the false NT, mind you) was somewhat in line with some Rabbinic influences.
It seems somewhat of a silly idea to venerate jesus even as a “rabbi” knowing how much of a botched source that the NT is. But I guess to each his own…
Dear CR. The best evidence we have is the general revelation at Mount Sinai, when thousands of people saw it. If it is not true and somebody would have invented it, people would not have believed it or followed it. On the other hand, only a handful of people “saw” Jesus rising from the dead. He said that it would be a sign, but only a few chosen could see it. So people have to believe their account. People saw the Glory of YHVH at Sinai, and G-d say, don’t follow something else, because your fathers have seen G-d.
“when thousands of people saw it”
RM, probably millions. And, their direct physical descendants who have inherited the information from parent to parent are still here with us. And, their history has been thoroughly recorded over thousands of years and examined by countless historians, archeologists and theologians.
Dear CR. The best evidence we have is the general revelation at Mount Sinai, when thousands of people saw it. If it is not true and somebody would have invented it, people would not have believed it or followed it.
No offense to anybody is meant by what I’m about to say, just to make that clear, but this statement
“thousands of people saw it. If it is not true and somebody would have invented it, people would not have believed it or followed it.”
Makes an unverifiable assumption. The assumption this statement inadvertently makes is that given a large enough group of people, (namely a nation) a myth cannot and will not propagate itself. We know for a testable fact that this is not true from our everyday experience, and that just because thousands or millions of people see and believe something is true, it doesn’t automatically make it true.
As an example, thousands of people claimed to see the Virgin Mary appear at Zaitun in Egypt. Over a period of years in the 1960s. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun the witnesses of this claimed mass revelation are still alive, so we still have the benefit of cross examining the claim based on available evidence and refuting it. We do not have this opportunity for cross examination with the Torah’s own claim about Sinai.
Millions of people see the Aurora Borealis (northern lights) and yet some believe there are UFOs there http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=259488
This does not mean that the Torah claim can’t be empirically tested. If millions of people indeed left Egypt in a mass Exodus there should definitely be verifiable archeological evidence of its occurrence and lots of it to examine today. Why? The biblical account says 600,000 males left Egypt (if we conservatively factor in women children and elderly) we should have a number of approximately 5,000,000 Hebrews. Add to this number, the number of casualties in Egyypt from the plague of the first born, from Pharaoh’s offspring on down, ( very conservatively let’s say, 1,000,000 people, because a society that can accommodate such a large slave population must be equally large, so that the land can produce food to support so many.) and let’s also factor in Pharoah’s chariots at about 100,000 to be conservative.
If we take this conservative Data seriously, 6.1 million people left from and or died in Egypt, not counting casualties from the other plagues. We should see tons of archaeogical evidence of this fact. To put this number into perspective, the population of Los Angeles as of 2013 was 10.02 million. So, the Exodus would be as though roughly over half the population of Los Angeles either left, or dropped dead in a very short period. We would expect to see in the Archaeological record studies a degree of societal collapse in Egypt on the same level as Pompeii after Vesuvius blew, on the level of Japan after Hiroshima, we should expect to see written records made by surrounding cultures mocking the Egytian defeat at G-d’s actions, etc. (because cultures did that back then) but, we really see nothing of the sort. There is every reason to assume that the historical claims made by Tanakh should be archaeologically verifiable.
CR, using the “suicide bomb argument” again:)?
“We would expect to see in the Archaeological record studies a degree of societal collapse in Egypt”
Ever heard of Ipuwer Papyrus?
Dear CR, it’s true that in a way or an other, you have to believe that it happened. An other explanation could be that Kind David (or another king) wrote the Torah and then forced everybody to believe it. He wrote false census and false stories, a false description of the tabernacle and built his on according to his own imagination. Many years later, everybody forgot that the story was false and genuinely believed it. The prophets had some kind of imaginary vision and that could have been explained by lunatics, the government or any other rational explanation. All the prophecies, would have needed to be written after the fact. In my opinion, that explanation makes less sense than believing in the Tanakh. For the non-testament prophecy of the Second Temple destruction, the event were written after the destruction of the temple. So it was actually written after it happened…
“So it was actually written after it happened…”
The earliest letters that we have are from Paul – and he seems to have no clue of the coming Temple destruction that the gospels (written much later) foretell. Thankfully, the church scribes added something to help Paul in that regard in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, but they made a small error – they spoke of the “wrath” in present or past tense. Oops.
I’ve already conceded to Yehuda on NT gaps Gene, and I’m applying the standard used to The torah. Remi, since Christian claims ( including extra biblical historical sources) serve as grounds for dismissal, how do you check claims that are thousands of years older than the NT? The papyrus you mention is just a papyrus. The nature of the Torah claim is as historical as any other historical event. It should be open to historical inquiry of the kind used to show Christianity is wrng. Also, consider this excerpt from the wiki for your papyrus.
“Modern research suggests that the papyrus dates to the much later 13th dynasty, with part of the papyrus now thought to date to the time of Pharaoh Khety, and the admonitions of Ipuwer actually being addressed to the god ATUM, not a mortal king.[8]” Atum is an Egyptian deity identified with the sun, not Hashem.
CR, let’s suppose that events described in the Torah are completely unprovable from historical point of view. OK, fine. But is this really the main objection that Jews have against the Christian bible? No – the main objection is that even if ALL of the events and statements in the New Testament actually happened as described, they (and the doctrines that were developed based on them) must be rejected by Jews because they contradict the Torah and the prophets.
Even if Jesus single-handedly resurrected a whole graveyard worth of people at once (funny, but the NT does claim exactly that, in Matthew 27:52), even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that this event indeed occurred, both Jesus and the religion based on him would STILL be required to be rejected by Jews, since those who perform signs, predictions and wonders but violate Torah and specifically prohibition to lead other into worship of other gods (and idolatry of a man as if he were Hashem Himself would be the chief of such violations) are not to be trusted and even to be viewed as tests from G-d Himself, per Deuteronomy 13:3.
The point is Gene, if your human experience or empirical knowledge doesn’t mean anything vis the Torah, then how can your text reasonably make historical claims that cannot be verified by studying history? That’s nonsensical. The bible even says that G-d is the one who sends the false prophets. So, in a way, this G-d sent Jesus to test his Chosen nation, and this test has caused great harm to Jews even now, despite Jewish compliance with G-d’s own command to slay him. None of it makes any sense in light of biblical concepts of divine justice, divine mercy, etc.
Jews should have been blessed for killing the false prophet, not dispersed, according to the Bible.
“Jews should have been blessed for killing the false prophet, not dispersed, according to the Bible.”
CR, I take it that you believe that Jews were murdered in mass by Romans, Christians and Hitlers of the world for rejecting Jesus?
No, not at all. I’m saying that the bible says to kill a false prophet. Jews did that. Because they did this, blessing should have come from G-d for following his will. Forget Jesus, I conceded to Yehuda about the gaps in Christianity. I’m wondering what rational basis you have for what you believe.
“I’m saying that the bible says to kill a false prophet. Jews did that. Because they did this, blessing should have come from G-d for following his will. ”
First of all, it was the Romans who killed Jesus, as they did many thousands of other Jews in the same exact manner and as they did to ALL of the other messianic candidates of the first century.
Jews didn’t have to “betray Jesus to the Romans” – the Romans automatically arrested and executed any and all leaders of whatever messianic, apocalyptic or insurrectionist movement cropped up. And there were many of them. The NT’s conflicting stories of Jesus’ “trial” or “non-trial” are a huge contradicting mess, with blatant historical errors. It’s a slander against Jews, in other words, an attempt to whitewash what the Romans did to thousands of Jews like Jesus and to pin the blame on the Jewish people, the victims.
Since the Jews didn’t kill Jesus, and since Jews – only a tiny minority of whom lived in Judea at the time – were attacked by Romans for rebelling against their domination and not for rejecting Jesus some 40 years earlier, can one claim that they were either cursed or blessed by G-d for doing away with Jesus? There’s a long history leading up to the events with Roman occupation that began MUCH earlier, long before Jesus was even a twinkle in his father’s and mother’s eyes.
“I’m wondering what rational basis you have for what you believe.”
I could write a book about both the rational and faith-based basis of my beliefs in the One G-d of Israel, but other Jews before me have already done a great job. But I am not writing this blog to convince atheists and agnostics, am I?
May I add something. “The Jews killed Jesus”, “The Jews are from the father the devil” and many more are the reason why innocent people have been killed for centuries. Not because they were cursed by G-d. The NT is anti-semitic.
CR, to use your argument, we could prove that Muslims are right and that xtians have been killed because they refused Mohamed as prophet!
I’m not out to prove it, I’m asking you now that Christianity is disproven, why believe? A person can believe there is one god without necisarily believing in the Bible. Many deists believe that god started the cosmos, but took a step back afterwards. Why are they wrong?
See what I mean?
You have disproven through various means that there was anything providential about Christianity and Islam. Why is the mother faith real while the daughter faiths are false?
Because G-d is good and His mercy endures forever. He is G-d of gods and L-rd of Lords, our father (everybody not just the Jews) and our King. Because he is not like the xtian or muslim god that throw everybody in HELL FIRE. He loves us and wants the best for us. He is there in time of needs. Because everything else is vanity, life is a shadow, nothing (broken cisterns) can compare to His majesty. He is everywhere and nobody can hide from HIM. Why would we replace the G-d the universe with anything else. Personally, I don’t want to have April’s First as my National Holiday. His commandments are right and just, a light for anybody’s path. By them, we become wiser. His commandments and Torah will help us stay in the right path because everything that comes out of His mouth is Good.
“You have disproven through various means that there was anything providential about Christianity and Islam. Why is the mother faith real while the daughter faiths are false?”
It’s real to me because the events described in the Torah happened to my relatives (my ancestors), and not to a few disciples of an itinerant preacher or to some lone prophet in a cave. My relatives (my forefathers), and my ancestors’ neighbors and friends, were instructed by G-d to relay the events they personally witnessed and things that each of them individually and collectively heard to their own children (assuming their own children were not already present next to them during the events and were also partakers of the events), and/or to their children’s children, and so on. That’s the basis of the Jewish nation.
I understand that for someone outside of the Jewish people such a thing is incredulous and the Jewish witness is not trustworthy. And that’s fine, because unlike Christianity and Islam, we are not commanded to convert others or convince them by every means possible of the truth that we claim to possess. Rather, we were made, even involuntarily, to be witnesses to G-d before the nations.
That’s a belief about G-d that Jews hold, it says nothing about whether that belief is true or not.
A person does not approach reality with faith alone. If I am going to get medical treatment for an illness, I need more than faith that the treatment is appropriate and good.
Gene said, that even if Jesus had actually done the miracles that the Christians say he did, this would not mean he was from G-d. So, an obvious extension to this question is, how do we know that the Sinai claim was really from G-d? It didn’t have a previous revelation to back it up, it doesn’t have external empirical evidence to verify it. How is the belief logically consistent?
If the Torah gives a test to determine the validity of another ideology, it stands to reason that the Torah itself should meet that same test. It doesn’t seem to do so, because it uses its own claims (Torah and Jewish people) to prove that the Torah and Jewish people are telling the truth. The emergence of Christianity shows that Jews (like other peoples of the earth) are susceptible to believing in myth, and being swayed by it.
“It didn’t have a previous revelation to back it up, it doesn’t have external empirical evidence to verify it. How is the belief logically consistent?”
CR, may be G-d doesn’t exist, if we are to be completely logically consistent, since you have not seen or heard from Him yourself and lack “external empirical evidence to verify it”? Why are we pretending to play atheist vs. religious game?
You can either trust the witness of the Jewish people or not. Apparently most of the world did trust it already, one way or another. They just rejected the witnesses to put themselves on the pedestal.
“The emergence of Christianity shows that Jews (like other peoples of the earth) are susceptible to believing in myth”
Unless the bulk of the myth (virgin birth, physical resurrection of Jesus, dying for sins of mankind, coming back second time) was generated by Gentiles, e.g. Paul and his disciples, who used Jewish messianism as the basis of their demigod myth.
Jews have rejected the Jesus myth as a people, if that were not obvious enough (even if some proved to be susceptible, especially those who were once Jewishly ignorant, like yours truly).
Apparently most of the world did trust it already, one way or another.
This is entirely a moot (not to mention ridiculous) point Gene, as the things that most of the world trusted were Christianity and Islam. You cant say, Most of the world accepted biblical ideas whilst totally denying the validity of those sister systems. That’s completely inconsistent.
Its also difficult to posit a pure Jewish messianism source that was corrupted by gentiles, because everything we know about Jesus (including his Jewishness) comes from those very Church and or Roman sources that you dispute.
Unless the bulk of the myth (virgin birth, physical resurrection of Jesus, dying for sins of mankind, coming back second time)
Pharisees taught physical resurrection, Elijah is believed to be “coming back a second time” and atoning through death all have Jewish antecedents though, that Christians expanded and elucidated. There is without a doubt Jewish DNA in that mythos, though it clearly doesn’t mesh with Judaism.
“This is entirely a moot (not to mention ridiculous) point Gene, as the things that most of the world trusted were Christianity and Islam.”
CR, you must’ve misunderstood – most of the world trusted the fact that Jews indeed saw G-d do great things before their eyes and heard G-d speak to them, since they (the world) came to depend on the original Jewish witness to establish the credibility of their own derivative world views. That the daughter religions tried to murder their mother in order to take her place is a whole other point.
“Pharisees taught physical resurrection”
They didn’t teach messiah resurrecting himself, that’s for sure.
“Elijah is believed to be “coming back a second time”
But he never died and his return is prophesied in the Bible, Jesus’ is not.
“and atoning through death all have Jewish antecedents though, that Christians expanded and elucidated.”
Atoning for oneself (if criminal) through one’s own death is in the Bible. “Atoning” for others is post-biblical and even post-Christian, and was not meant in the way of forgiveness of sins, but that others will reflect upon the death of the righteous and mend their ways. Atoning for sins of the world and granting others eternal life by voluntarily sacrificing oneself – that’s not Judaism.
but that others will reflect upon the death of the righteous and mend their ways. This is how Eastern Orthodox understand the death of Jesus. If you don’t mend your ways, you are not “saved” in their worldview.
most of the world trusted the fact that Jews indeed saw G-d do great things before their eyes and heard G-d speak to them, since they (the world) came to depend on the original Jewish witness to establish the credibility of their own derivative world views. That the daughter religions tried to murder their mother in order to take her place is a whole other point.
The point though is, They (the sisters/daughters) got it totally wrong! Their followers accepted these Torah claims as true for false reasons in line with their already established beliefs about their false prophets and experiences that they purportedly had through them.
In other words, the faithful gentile Christians already believed as neophytes that Jesus’, death was redemptive, that he fed thousands with bread and fish, that he was a product of unique birth, etc. these beliefs provide them with a retroactive confirmation bias. Gentile polytheists came directly from paganism to Christianity and Islam (without consulting Jews) so their acceptance of The Torah would be irrelevant, because it was acceptance based on falsehood.
Average Pagans were not in the habit of trusting in Jewish notions about G-d, (as their polemics against Judaism show.) Granted, there were many G-d fearers in the Roman Empire, (about 30% of the population,) but they were not what you would call knowledgeable or strictly observant (even of the seven laws) because the pagan state would not allow the exemptions for them that they did for Jews.
” so their acceptance of The Torah would be irrelevant, because it was acceptance based on falsehood..”
CR, you are still arguing from a a point of view of a hypothetical agnostic.
You are right and wrong in your understanding at the same time. True. they didn’t accept Torah and its precepts but still they wanted to become the “people of G-d”, or the “new Israel”. To do that they accepted the fact that G-d revealed Himself to Jews because they needed a foundation unto which to build their religions. Then they they proceeded to repudiate the mother faith and the people, Judaism and the Jews, as having failed in understanding G-d and His Torah or living up to G-d’s standards. This is superssesionism 101, both Christian and Islamic.
CR, you are still arguing from a a point of view of a hypothetical agnostic.
If you had your faith obliterated wouldn’t you feel slightly cautious about another claim?
If you had idolatry obliterated in your mind and in your life, embracing the true faith in your Creator, the G-d of Israel and the G-d of all humanity, instead of the derivative impostors, may be the next logical step. Since you are not asking me to prove to you the existence of G-d, and since you already believe in the G-d of Israel, embracing your role as a righteous non-Jew who eschews idolatry and falsehoods of religions which attempted to supercede Israel’s G-d given role and message, is something I would advise that you do. Not sure that I can prove to you anything that you don’t already know yourself.
I believe there may be a first cause, but as I cannot independently verify or substantiate the Bible’s unique claims (unless I accept faith claims without an independent basis in history,) it is hard to accept these as credible witness.
CR, then there is nothing I can help you (and your imaginary skeptic friend) with.
Ok gene.
Nowhere “the New Testament misuses and distorts the Tanakh by claiming things that the Tanakh itself doesn’t support or outright rejects and even explicitly forbids.” The New Testament is a confirmation of that what is written in the Hebrew Scriptures. The problem lies by man. Lots have distorted those words of the Scriptures and made Jesus into their god.
“The problem lies by man. Lots have distorted those words of the Scriptures and made Jesus into their god.”
@Christadelphians.
Unless the “New Testament”, like books of other religions that also claim to be a “confirmation of that what is written in the Hebrew Scriptures” (Christianity, Islam, Samaritanism, Druzes, Mandeans, Rastafarians, the Bahá’í and Bábí religions, etc.), is not “scripture”.
But you are partially correct – the problems indeed lie in man and his distortion of the Hebrew Bible. To the Jewish people, however, the NT is but one example of the distortion you speak of, not an exception to it. Christianity is its fruit.
You included the Samaritans in your list of heretics Gene? Insofar as I’m aware (according to the temple institute) Samaritan sacrificial practices (that continue to be practiced today) are the best bet for teaching future Kohanim how sacrifices will actually be carried out in the future beis Ha Mikdash. Halacha is great when it comes to theoretical cases, but Sanaritans may actually help by their example in the future.
Also, aren’t they technically considered Jews as per Torah (insofar as the areas wherein they agree with the rabbinic halacha? )
Samaritans are not Jews, CR. They are descendants of people imported to replace Jews when Jews were taken into Assyria, perhaps mixed with some poor Jews who were left in the land. In Ezra we read that they actually opposed rebuilding of the Temple by the Jewish returnees and thus know nothing of true Jewish priestly practices, since they were never around to either observe or to practice them, not having even existed when the Temple still stood or was operational nor having participated in any way, much less as priests, when it was rebuilt by Jews. They are not “heretics” from Judaism, since they are not Jews in the first place. They are simply followers of another derivative religion.
CR, couldn’t you say that both the Old and New Covenants rely on the authenticity of G-d Himself—it is He who designed them both to fulfill an extraordinary purpose of demonstrating His abundant justice, righteousness, and mercy. G-d’s own mysterious revelation of Himself through the salvation of humanity is only brought to light slowly— from Genesis through Revelation.
KAVI, CR is no longer a Christian…
Gene, perhaps there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a Christian is? From reading the notes, I am not sure we could find CR as a believer in a G-dly Messiah?
However, I did find CR’s discussion very telling because I see a tormented individual who is intellectually brilliant, yet searching, and unaware of G-d’s providential purpose to redeem humanity from their sins through Yeshua.
Kavi, thank you for the compliment of calling me brilliant, but I promise you, I am not unaware about Jesus. I am also not really tormented as far as I’m aware.
CR is indeed an erudite man:)
CR . . . this conversation is difficult to follow-up because I cannot discern whether you believe there is a Creator G-d.
For without any Emunah in a sovereign G-d of grace, does it really matter which text is used?
Perhaps you could kindly elaborate?
I believe that G-d, or what we humans call G-d is in many ways beyond the conception of ANY PERSON.
That’s why he is called I Will Be What I will Be. (HE ALONE IS, HE ALONE KNOWS.)
Because of that, I’m very weary of the claims made by any people on G-d’s behalf. What I’ve realized, is that whether you read the Tanakh, or the NT (Read only the Red Letters because only those are Jesus’ own known words, AND not those of his students WRITTEN ABOUT HIM.)
You will quickly realize that the only constant GROUNDED barometer that scripture gives you to discern real truth value is adherence to godly conduct in terms of the commandments, ie the dos and dont’s. HOW TO BEHAVE, It’s the only unambiguous thing in the Whole bible.
Everything involving miracles, claims to divinity, etc. Are all fake able by false teachers. (The anti Christ in the New Testament is said to claim divinity, to do miracles, and to lead the elect astray in 2 Thesalonians.) This means that these types of things cannot be relied on to know the truth.
Everything else in scripture is based in Miracles and he said she said, and also on theological notions that cause arguing and rely on very subjective interpretations. Miracles, he said she said, and theology are all the major areas where humans historically argue and divide and behave foolishly causing violence and power grabbing.
Consider carefully that If Jews,Muslims, and Christians only focussed on the ethics found in their books, and nothing else, there would be very little indeed for these communities to fight about.
It’s only when a Christian makes Jesus’ person, and his purported divinity/messiahship the most Important Thing that Jews see a problem, because that conflicts with the unambiguous meaning of the mitzvot.
I realize that Christians view Jesus as a redemptive figure, but if his person is made the central focus, you end up with endless sects arguing about who he is by nature, ie a prophet, the messiah, a god, The G-d, etc. In the midst of all this theology, how Jesus tells you to behave gets lost and de emphasized. I told someone once, “imagine that the whole world “believed in Jesus,” as all Christians want, but nobody lived as he did. Would they really be believers in that case? NO!
Christians are so busy telling the Jews to leave the rabbis, the Mitzvot, etc. In favor of messianic and Christian beliefs about Jesus, that the Christians forget something.
THE RABBINIC JEWS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO STILL LIVE THEIR LIFE ON THIS EARTH EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS JESUS LIVED HIS WHILE HE WAS HERE.
Jesus said, “you say that you love me, but YOU DO NOT DO THE THINGS I SAY.”
So, no I’m not a Christian, (though I have NO ANIMOSITY for Jesus or christians,) and I do not care to comment on the nature of G-d, because scripture doesn’t say “know my nature is X” it says, I am G-d, and there is no other.
Consider carefully the fact that until the Mishna was codified at around 200 CE, there wasn’t really a Jewish word for what most gentiles and gentile cultures called and call Nature. The rabbis later used Teva and Tabaat as pseudonyms for the concept we call nature, but before that, the closest analogue to the idea of what we commonly call nature was G-d himself, namely, G-d as that which is, was, and shall be, the great I will be what I will be.
G-d is the only one that the Jewish Bible describes as BEING. IN FACT HE IS THE BE ER, THE IS NESS, THAT WHICH IS.
WE BY CONTRAST AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT EXISTS HAVE BEING. WE EXIST AS A THING THAT IS, WE ARE NOT THE ESSENCE OF IS, ONLY G-D IS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT IS!
This (as I understand ) is what Jews would call an exposition on Ein Od Milvado. THERE IS G-d, there is none else. Gene, correct me if I’m wrong.
This concept also explains (without violating reason and logic) and ironically, in a way how Jesus could have said “I and my father are one,” “the father is greater than I,” “father make them (his students) one as you and I are one,” and tell his students, “you will do greater things than I have done,” without contradicting the idea of simple divine unity.
This is how he could say, “why do you accuse me of blasphemy when I say I am son of G-d? scripture says YE ARE ELOHIM, AND ALL OF YOU SONS OF THE MOST HIGH!
The Church has made Jesus and claims about him the central focus, and they have expounded a theology around him, but they have ignored the culture and contextual frame of reference that he came from, lived in, and spoke from within. This has been an error that has caused serious harm.
CR . . . I sincerely appreciate such an elaborate elaboration :)
You have brought together so many ideas, I not sure readers could easily comment on everything in one portion– so, perhaps you (and Gene) will allow readers some time to grasp your thoughts and make comments over time?
As for my brief input, I would try to bring the subject back to the Original Question as much as possible (with perhaps a bit of re-phrasing).
CR . . . Yes, divisiveness is an issue—however, all “truth” by nature is divisive.
Even if we could narrow down morality to the do’s and don’ts of Islam, Judaism, and followers of the Messiah, there are still inherent fundamental differences. As a tiny tip of the iceberg, we easily could foresee difficulties with keeping Shabbat, Pesach, etc.
Let’s look at one schism which, perhaps unexpectedly, unifies the New and Old Covenants:
Matthew 10:34-36 (using only the “red letters” of L-rd Yeshua’s words)
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn:
“ a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”
Micah 7:6-7
“For a son dishonors his father,
a daughter rises up against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies are the members of his own household.
But as for me, I watch in hope for the Lord,
I wait for God my Savior;
my God will hear me.”
Since Yeshua promises division, it had to be for a purpose to separate those who were seeking and finding “truth” from those who were not— as Yeshua says:
“You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth.
Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” John 18:37
Since L-rd Yeshua confirmed the validity of the Torah (Matthew 5:18), perhaps we can perceive that HaShem:
(a) has a unifying purpose of Truth, and
(b) has more than enough power to keep both Old and New Covenants as testimonies to His truthful purpose.
Kavi, if you believe Jesus is the messiah, what is it about him to you that’s most important? If it’s not the commandments he taught, then it’s irrelevant, because there are so many beliefs that Christians hold in common and yet bicker about, or even which false teachers use to snare people. No offense. Have you ever considered how relative terms like old and New Testament are? The first time Christians used the term New Testament was Marcion of Sinope, the gnostic heretic who believed Jesus was divine, but was a libertine antinomian. If truth is by nature divisive, then we live in a reality sublimated to relativism.
The point I made about ALL OF YOU ARE SONS OF THE MOST HIGH is supposed to illustrate that the Church errs greatly in saying Jesus is G-d or son of G-d in a unique way, making him a go between. When the church worships Jesus that is idolatry, as we are all Children of G-d. as scripture clearly calls ISRAEL as a nation, his son.
CR . . . Yes, divisiveness is an issue—however, all “truth” by nature is divisive.
Then the verse that says, in that day he and his name will be one, has been sublimated into relativism.
Dear Kavy, could you please tell me what laws of the “old” testament are still bounding? G-d said His commandments are forever, like you said, Jesus did not abolished it, but fulfilled it. But what should a believer in Jesus do? Nobody will disagree that xtians should keep the morals laws, but what about the foods, Shabbaths, and all the rest, was it all a shadow of Jesus? Also, who would you consider a follower a Jesus? Because, honestly, there was a lot of division, and most was not for peace, but for a sword. You might argue that they were not “true” followers of Yeshua, but who was, 200, 800 or even 1000 years ago. First the catholics, who used your verse pretty literally! Then our good friends the reforms, like Luther and Calvin. When in truth, the Tanakh teaches that the messiah will bring back the son and daughter to the father. Between you and me, how can you ask someone who believes first in the Tanakh and knows Devarim (Deuteronomy) to believe in Jesus. Jesus was not the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (you might believe he was, but going back to Jesus time it would have been a ridiculous claim). Deuteronomy 11:6 Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. When Jesus arrived in the scene, nobody knew him. And please, let examine passages in context to see if really the old testament foresees that Jesus is the Messiah. Because, most of those passages are taken out of context or are mistranslated…
CR. . . I hope the following response helps with a couple of your questions.
______________________________________________
[a] Unity with G-d, Yehudim, and Goyim would certainly be one primary importance about Yeshua. As Yeshua says,
John 10:14-16
“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
This unity is made possible because:
— sin uniquely unifies mankind (in a detrimental way), and
— Yeshua laid down His life to redeem mankind from their sins regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.
Yeshua continues. . .
John 10:17-18
“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
________________________________________________
[b] Old Covenant and New Covenant
I suppose the B’rit Hadashah could be used instead of New Covenant however, I think there is great imagery in using Old/New Covenants because:
— We can see that G-d has a unifying purpose between Yehudim/Goyim Messianic believers;
— We see the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Remi4321,
The question you ask is very important and one of the first to be addressed by the Jewish leaders of the Messianic congregation. Rather than read some discourse of mine, how about a real story from the first century which comes to us from the Book of Acts?
Acts 15:1-21
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.
When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:
–“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
–Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up:
— “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
“ ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,
That the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’, things known from long ago.
–“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Kavi, your explanation of the reason d’être for Jesus’ coming (to call the gentiles in a path apart from the law) assumes that the Tanakh alone without him doesn’t also make provision for the various people’s of the non Jewish nations, but it does.
When Paul made his converts among the gentiles, he built upon an already established movement of G-d fearing non Jews, AKA the path walked before people became full proselytes, people like Ruth, Naamaan the Syrian, etc. All of the rules you see in Acts chapter 15 rely on basic Torah values for non Jews that were already common in Jesus’ day in second temple times.
It’s a common refrain among christians to see rabbinic Judaism as legalistic, “works salvation” and xenophobic, but this is a horrific mischaracterization, and it ignores so much history. Christianity has superadded concepts like vicarious atonement as being required to be pleasing to G-d, not to mention errors like faith only, when the Tanach only requires sincere repentance, and obedience to the best of your ability.
If you study the oldest christian denominations before the reformers, they all taught that righteous actions are needed to be “saved,” because salvation is s lifelong process.
Demeaning the necessity of Righteous actions was not what Paul meant by “not by works.” Works in context always meant relying on badges of affiliation to a community or group aka pew sitting. Paul taught that gentiles didn’t need to become Jewish. He never ever said deeds do nothing to contribute to salvation.
The point is that if you really listen to Jesus’ ethic, there is no reason a Torah Jew can’t remain as he is, without Jesus or baptism as a go between.
Hi CR, maybe you are right if you listen to Jesus’ ethic, but he said “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” This means that Jesus himself (Red letter) said it was necessary to believe in him. (I guess for atonement purposes). This point to the most fundamental question of all, should we (Jews or Gentile) believe he is such atonement. He claimed he was (with the exception to the book of Luke and acts). As he claimed that no one comes to the father except through him, should we really put Jesus Before the face of G-d and would that break the first commandment? If Jesus is part of a trinity, then yes, but if, as it is written in the Tanakh, G-d is one, that brings the questions, why should we believe the Jesus was G-d and why should we put elegance to him. The NT forbids to ask the questions, lest you become an anti-Christ, but those questions are essential. If Jesus is G-d, then Gene, CR and I are going to Hell, forever and ever, but if he is not, Kavi has a misunderstanding of G-d, and is committing spiritual adultery (G-d knows everybody’s thoughts, and I know there are a lot of xtians that are honest and want to worship the true G-d, and I know (think) G-d will be merciful as He said in Psalm 103). Is there any reason from the Tanakh why anybody should believe in Jesus? Please, Kavi provide.
The first question I had when I stared doubting was “Would anybody come to the conclusion that Jesus is G-d if we read only the Tanakh, or do I have to believe first before I can see Jesus in it?”
Hopefully we all can learn and know really who G-d is…
Remi, the real question is, what did Jesus himself, (and even most early Christians) think constituted proper “belief” in Jesus as oppised to Improper? How do you discern the true Jesus from the false?
If you read the NT carefully, he always says, DO What I say, judge by fruit, if you don’t, you don’t really believe I am he. Belief meant action according to Jesus, NOT PRAISE. We know this well from the verse Mathew 7:22. Mighty and miraculous works don’t impress Jesus, so what does? “Say that you love me, and yet you do not keep that which I say.” IF YOU LOVED ME YOU WOULD OBEY MY COMMANDS.
Jesus always castigated his opponents as those who do not ACT Faithfully on G-d’s behalf, EVEN THOSE WHO FOLLOWED HIM.
As I mentioned Previously about “Anti Christ,” it’s one of the core things that led me out of the focus on Christian theological speculations, and away from focus on Jesus as some sort of conduit to G-d.
Because, In the NT itself, 2 Thessalonians says anti Christ will claim to be G-d, and lead even the elect astray, and the book of revelation says he will work miracles and FORCE people to accept him. It also says his followers rush for profit into Balaam’s error. What was Balaam’s error? Enticing ISRAEL through Sexual immorality, idolatry, etc. TRYING TO GET JEWS TO ABANDON MITZVOT.
This logically means that believing something on the basis of miracles and claims to divinity, or earthly gain will not necisarily lead you to the truth.
The anti Christ claims divinity, works miracles, and seeks his own honor, THE NT EVEN EXPLICITLY SPELLS OUT THAT HE COMES IN HIS OWN NAME, PRETENDING TO BE LIKE JESUS. This means these KINDS OF MIRACULOUS claims aren’t reliable. FURTER, SIMON THE MAGICIAN “BELIEVED” in Jesus on the basis of miracles HE THOUGHT HE COULD BUY HOLINESS, HE CARED NOTHING ABOUT JESUS’ COMMANDMENTS.
The only clear berometer the NT itself gives the Christians in order to truly know who anti Christ is, is anti Christ’s lawlessness, in contrast to Jesus’ lawful obedience to the father. THE NT EVEN SAYS SINNIS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW. In other words, the NT tells you, “the doer of the work shall be justified,” “here is the patience of the saints, they WHO KEEP THE COMMANDS OF G-d and the faith OF (as opposed to in) JESUS,” for even demons believe and tremble. The NT itself leads the discerning reader away from tacit acceptance of Christian theology, directly into a focus on Jesus’ ethics. IF YOU FOCUS ON THAT AS THE CRUX IF JESUS’ message, AS HE LIKELY INTENDED, THEN JUDAISM AS IT IS TODAY IS MORE Authentically “CHRISTIAN” than any Christian sect is.
THINK HARD ABOUT THIS REMI. CHRISTIANS TODAY WOULDNT FIND IT ACCEPTABLE TO FOLLOW OR HEAR JESUS’ TEACHINGS SOLELY AS HE ORIGINALLY AND INITIALLY REVEALED HIMSELF TO HIS STUDENTS, AS A PLAIN RABBI!
Before he mentioned a damn thing about dying FOR SINS, about being the son of G-d, etc. He first showed himself TO THE DISCIPLES ONLY as a plain simple Galilean Rabbi, WHO SAID IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Hi CR, I must admit that I have really few objections if you believe he was a Rabbi, or even a prophet. You can still keep what is taught in the Tanakh without nullifying (fulfilling?) it (and try to fulfill all righteousness as Jesus taught). I was mostly asking Kavi, as a Messianic Jew, who probably believes Jesus was part of a triune god. Someone could, I think, believe in Jesus as a Rabbi and still keep and follow the Torah.
Modern Christians are like a youth experiencing his or her first crush or relationship. They see the beauty, the magic, the thrill of a relationship, but they all too often focus not on the actual substance of the person, or who they really are, but on the ideal image THEY HAVE of them, drunk with emotion.
EVEN IF THE CHRISTIANS ARE RIGHT AND JESUS WAS THE KING MESSIAH, LOVING HIM ISNT THE SAME AS FOLLOWING IN HIS WAY. WE SEE THE SAME THING TODAY IN CHABAD WITH THEIR SMALL MESSIANIST SEGMENT.
Remi and CR,
You both are absolutely correct to identify the ultimate question—is Yeshua HaMashiach G-d or not? If so, is he a god or manifestation of a god—or is He G-d the Son, one with the Father and Ruach HaKodesh?
If you could patiently allow me to tell a brief, but hopefully not too brief, story. I cannot convey it as well as if we read it directly from the Tanakh, but it’s so well known that I think no one would have too much trouble following along—and if by the end of this story you find fault, well, then at least you can be credited with being a courteous listener to a stranger and alien to this forum!
_______________________________________________________________
In the beginning of creation, we see the beginning of G-d revealing Himself when the Ruach HaKodesh is spoken of as hovering above the face of the waters. On the sixth day G-d says,
—— “Let Us make man in Our image.”
Though created perfectly without sin, yet mankind does sin through disobedience to G-d and destroys his relationship with his Creator.
Despite the sin, G-d seeks out the wicked man and woman while they are hiding in Gan Eden. And He makes a promise—a promise that one of Chava’s progeny would one day crush the power of the deceiver, satan, the “serpent”.
However, until that promise is fulfilled in the future, we see that G-d must introduce a temporary way to atone for sin—an atonement through blood. An animal is slain and its skin is turned into clothing to cover Adam and Chava. Even though mankind sinned just one time, they are rejected from living anymore in Gan Eden.
In time, Chava gives birth to Cain then Abel.
When both are grown, Abel, in Emunah, follows the example given by G-d and sacrifices the firstborn of his flock to Him. G-d accepts Abel’s offering as atonement.
Cain’s sacrifice of fruits of the earth rejects G-d’s example and rejects Emunah of blood atonement. And so Cain hated a righteous G-d and hated righteous Abel—and Cain murdered his brother as if Abel was no more than a sacrificial animal.
But G-d would not let his promise fail and Chava bore Seth. And so the promise of a future seed continued onward through righteous Enoch all the way through to righteous Noah.
Yet where is Yeshua HaMashiach? To this point, we have seen only a dim glimmer, only a hint—His time has not yet fully come.
. . . perhaps it is time however for the reader (if any) to pause to rest and ponder— I apologize, but there is so much to G-d’s redemption of mankind through Yeshua HaMashiach that’s woven throughout the Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim, that one sitting will not do justice.
If you could be so kind, I would like to continue the story tomorrow—Thank you!!
Kavi, you entirely misunderstood what I wrote.
The main question is NOT whether Yeshua is the messiah or not, but is, what did he himself say contributed to a strong unshakable foundation in G-d and the furthering of the kingdom? G-dly action is that ultimate betometor, not miracles, divinity, not a savior need.
What HASHEM expects of human beings, is not the belief in a divine mediator, but the following of his mitzvot. The way the NT says you spot a false one is by endurance to the end in the following of the commands.
You have talked at length about a world created without sin, where sin intruded on hashem’s perfect plan, but that (through glimmer and hint) is waiting for Jesus the fully man- fully God 2 natured single person, new Adam to come.
I ask you a pointed question.
Does it seem more reasonable to you that G-d would rest the fate of your eternity on a type and Shadow, or instead on unambiguous teaching that doesn’t require so much interpretation?
Consider that even Paul says sin was in the world before the transgression in Eden. (The satan was there for a purpose,) as he preserved the free choice, the free agency of Adam and Eve to choose G-d.)
Hi Kavi, please let me explain in a few words. You have a theory, and it is fine, but it is not the only theory. Can we draw a definite conclusion out of those texts is the questions that we have to ask ourselves.
We see the beginning of G-d revealing Himself when the Ruach HaKodesh is spoken of as hovering above the face of the waters.
What does the Spirit of Elohim means? Ruach can mean spirit or wind. We cannot arrive to the conclusion, with that passage that it talks about the thrid person of the Tritinty.
On the sixth day G-d says,
—— “Let Us make man in Our image.”
Plural majesty is often use. It could aslo mean that G-d was talking to angels. One thing for sure, you have to put Jesus there to prove your point. There are other possibilities and even Christian commentaries agree with me.
Though created perfectly without sin, yet mankind does sin through disobedience to G-d and destroys his relationship with his Creator.
Show me any Old testament verse saying that a human, the messiah or any reference to Jesus being sinless. Please show me any bible verse showing an extraordinary birth, there is none.
Despite the sin, G-d seeks out the wicked man and woman while they are hiding in Gan Eden. And He makes a promise—a promise that one of Chava’s progeny would one day crush the power of the deceiver, satan, the “serpent”.
The Seed of the Women does not mean Mary, There are many other seeds of women in the bible, Agar, Samson’s mother and Samuel’s mother are a few example. You can take the bible verse literally, the Serpent does not necessary mean “Satan”, those two terms are irrelevant. Also, the serpent, a created animal from G-d was GOOD.
However, until that promise is fulfilled in the future, we see that G-d must introduce a temporary way to atone for sin
Read Ezekiel 18, nobody else can atone for your sins and furthermore our past sins, G-d promises to forgive if we have a relationship with Him. No atonement required.
—an atonement through blood.
There is other means of atonements than blood. Atonement with blood is ONLY for unintentional sins. An intentional can become an unintentional sin in Leviticus 4, that could be the only example. Nowhere in the bible a he lamb is used for sin offering. The passover lamb is not a sin offering. An offering outside of the temple is an abomination to G-d, he who does a sin atonement outside of where God allows it should be killed without pity!
“When both are grown, Abel, in Emunah, follows the example given by G-d and sacrifices the firstborn of his flock to Him. G-d accepts Abel’s offering as atonement.
Cain’s sacrifice of fruits of the earth rejects G-d’s example and rejects Emunah of blood atonement. ”
Not according to the book of Hebrews, it is not the reason, it is because Cain did not have faith that it was rejected.
“And so Cain hated a righteous G-d and hated righteous Abel—and Cain murdered his brother as if Abel was no more than a sacrificial animal.”
And what G-d said to him? If you do right, won’t you be accepted? If we do right and have a relationship with G-d won’t we be accepted?
” but there is so much to G-d’s redemption of mankind through Yeshua HaMashiach that’s woven throughout the Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim, that one sitting will not do justice.”
No, in my opinion, there is so much that was introduced throught teaching, but read in context, all your proof will disappear…
“An offering outside of the temple is an abomination to G-d”
Some messianics recently have started saying that for this and many other reasons, well, Yeshua was not really an actual sacrifice or even a martyr, but that he was only “spiritually” (mystically) so. Or, as messianics like to say, “midrashically”.
Of course Gene, how can he be a passover lamb if only circumcises can participate? He could not have his bones broken, but what about the rest of the ordinances? The same with the sacrifices at the temple, scape goat and more. They don’t really add up, then if we take everything spiritually, where shall we stop. Is Israel still Israel or is it the Church of G-d the real one? We can literally take everything spiritually… If everything is shadows and types, then it is all smoke and mirror! G-d is one, we need serious proof to accept Jesus as G-d and I am still waiting for them…
“we need serious proof to accept Jesus as G-d”
Remi, in New Testament theology, unless G-d the Father personally reveals Jesus to you, you will not be able to accept him. Proof or not.
And this is where Christians get the belief that if one stops believing in JC, one was never a “true believer” in the first place, since otherwise Jesus would not “lose” them.
Perhaps G-d the Father never revealed the *real* Jesus to you in the first place:)
And that’s why everybody I know stopped listening (really listening) to my opinion about the new testament and the so proof that he is the messiah. But what if we are right and there is no such proof. I was reading this week about the angel from G-d in Exodus that He will send before the Israelites. That angel will not forgive your sins if we do not listen to him… And I though, maybe I was wrong, but when I continued reading in context, it talks about an angel in the time of Joshua, not Jesus… But out of context, it seem like it could be Jesus. And my friends keep asking me to pray to the holy spirit, I wonder why G-d the Father cannot answer my prayers? I am not blinded, people listen week after weeks proof of Jesus. That’s what a messianic preaching is all about. Not for you to walk according to what G-d say, not about how to be a good husband or believer, no, week after week, the preacher shows “proof” of Jesus… Then people See Jesus in each page of the old testament!
Nice, a laughing god saying, You, not you, Hell for you forever, maybe later, randomly, just for him to show his righteousness. Predestination was always a big issue for me, I had to toss it out even when I still believed in Jesus, but the truth, it is there and there is no way around it. For god so loved the world, that he sent his only son that a few elect might be selected randomly, and the rest, The heck, go to hell–literally.
Remi, you need to have faith first and then Jesus will prove himself to you (don’t you remember the gospels and the miracles?) Without faith, Jesus can’t do anything for you, sorry. Just having faith in G-d is not enough for Jesus to do his thing.
CR __ Indeed, why didn’t G-d just reveal Himself long ago? ──Isaiah pretty much begged the same saying, “Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at your presence!”
Yet G-d does not . . . instead,
──“He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him,
thick clouds dark with water.” Psalm 18:11
So, we see from the beginning of mankind’s creation, that G-d desires for Emunah in His Word. He purposely hides Himself to test us── whether we’re not to eat of the fruit of a tree or whether we’re to offer up a blood sacrifice, Emunah is what G-d finds precious.
Note> Remi, I hope this answer might partially address your concerns– Since G-d intends Emunah to be based on evidence, I will try to continue the story later tonight to get us up to Abraham.
As you already know, at this point in the narrative [Noah], we do not have the 613 Mitzvot until we get to Moses. Hopefully matters will become more clear as we move along through the Tanakh.
“Emunah is what G-d finds precious.”
Wrong, Kavi, obedience, actually DOING what G-d asked you, is what G-d finds most precious. “Emunah” almost never figures in the “Old Testament” and G-d never asks for it, but His calls to obedience to His commandments abound. G-d’s Torah makes it quite clear:
Your “lessons” here all come from from a wrong, classically Christian angle, that is that faith is what matters most to G-d. It’s not Abraham’s faith (after all, he spoke to G-d as a friend, so he didn’t need to wonder about G-d existence or ability) but his obedience is what mattered to G-d most:
The only time G-d commends Abraham for believing is when He promised him, an old man with an old wife, descendants. Christianity spun a whole new religion based on a few instances of exemplary faith, ignoring the fact that obedience to G-d is what most paramount in His eyes. It also mistook biblical “faithfulness” (steadfastness to persevere in obeying G-d) for “faith” (trust or belief).
Not to mention that Abraham talked with G-d all the time. He would have never doubt that G-d is real or true. So when Abraham believed G-d, he actually believed His promise and obeyed G-d. It is not the same than believing that Jesus is G-d.
“It is not the same than believing that Jesus is G-d.”
Exactly!
Kavi, Deuteronomy 4:35 says “You were shown that you may KNOW” which contradicts the notion that everything is built on Emunah chiefly.
First, let me thank you for raising direct, pointed questions– unless the tough questions are asked, how can anyone honestly address them?
As to Abraham, we’re kind of moving further ahead of the story than I intended [so, spoiler alert] :)
___________________________________________________________
Before Genesis 26, we read how G-d imputed righteousness to Abram in Genesis 15:
–“And he believed in HaShem, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”
Abram was not circumcised, nor were there any Mitzvot, yet G-d imputed righteousness upon Abram because he believed G-d’s Word.
Once G-d imputes righteousness to a man or woman through the “obedience” of Emunah, they may then freely extol the mercy of G-d for granting them the sure mercies of David:
–“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.” Psalm 32:1-2
“obedience of emunah” OK……..
Kavi, if you read the rest of the story, Abram recieved many further tests of his faith after this initial accounting of righteousness, including the circumcision, which required actions by Abraham, indeed were mitzvot of G-d. Faith without works is dead being alone.
Indeed, one may say that if G-d freely accounts righteousness to a person, it must be because he (as G-d) can see that person’s whole life, ie he knows such a person has a potential to be more godly, then wicked.
We see that human free agency to be godly is an inherent aspect of the Torah value system (AS OPPOSED to a doctrine like original sin, which obliterates free agency, notice I said agency, not free choice.)
To illustrate, Abraham argued with G-d so as to locate 10 righteous men in Sodom. The impetus of Abraham’s argument with G-d is that 10 righteous men can influence all the wicked of the city to repent, so that the WHOLE CITY COULD BE SPARED FROM WRATH. This same message is taught in Jonah too btw.
This story illustrates that freedom in Torah isn’t just a free choice, but an individual’s autonomy of agency. The ability to discuss principles of godliness with G-d, to argue your case with him, to demonstrate in actions the impetus of the name ISRAEL. (He who strives with G-d.)
Emunah in hebrew does not mean “faith” in the way that Protestant Christians use the term. In Protestant sources, faith is usually defined as an intellectual assent to a proposition (such as key christian doctrines.) in the hebrew, Faith, or Emunah encapsilates trusting faithfulness, in other words, there is no bifurcation of belief, or actions, from commands of G-d.
The whole point of the book of Job is also the free agency of the righteous man. In fact, a predestination, or original sin reading is obliterated by this book.
Notice that all of Job’s “friends” call him a sinner of one kind or other, but G-d says to them all, “YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT JOB, MY RIGHTEOUS SERVANT.”
Yesterday we left off with the G-d’s promise to provide a future redeemer of mankind—and G-d set the pattern of redemption through Emunah in His Word.
G-d kept His promise alive through the righteous line of Seth while the rest of mankind fell into great wickedness. The violence, hate, murder, debauchery, and continual wickedness became so pervasive that G-d decided to wipe mankind off the face of earth.
Yet Noah, from the line of Seth, dwelt righteously before God in the pattern set by his forefathers.
And G-d spoke to Noah to build an ark, and Noah believed G-d, and was saved along with his family from the destroying flood.
Afterwards, Noah offered a blood sacrifice, and G-d promised never to destroy the earth and animals again on behalf of mankind’s wickedness,
—- “for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Genesis 8:21
So life continued through Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, Japheth and each ones wife.
And despite the sign of this great flood, the descendents of Noah decided to directly disobey G-d’s Word to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Instead, they began to build themselves a city and tower “with its top to the heavens” to keep themselves together.
G-d came to view the city and tower,
—-And HaShem said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.”
—-“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” Genesis 11:7-8
And G-d confused their languages and dispersed mankind against their will in all directions.
Centuries pass, and some fifty years before Noah dies, Abram is born to Terah of the line of Shem.
Hopefully more tomorrow–
To this point, we see a couple things:
— G-d keeps His promise despite mankind’s sin. The promise begins in Gan Eden, is carried through Seth and, as we will see, through Abram. The promised “seed” (not “seeds”) is becoming more focused as to his race and specific ethnic group.
— G-d reveals Himself a second time by using “Us” to describe Himself. We need to take even more notice since Moses writes, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”
Kavi, how about you communicate, instead of preaching and teaching?
CR,
Yes, Abraham’s deeds “after” G-d imputed righteousness to him were indeed considered to be righteous deeds– any “good” deeds prior to then were considered filth,
–“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”
Isaiah 64:6
Also, just as David sings:
—“HaShem looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after Elohim.
—They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.” Psalm 14:2-3
Gene,
OK– I am a guest on your forum and, as the moderator, you have the right to direct the discussion. I hope you see that I was trying to address why one should find unity between the Old and New Covenants [i.e., the opposite side of the original question or, stated in the positive, “If the Hebrew Bible is true, why not the New Testament?].
Although I see value in answering multiple questions by telling a unified story from Genesis through Revelation, perhaps it’s not the best way to address key issues on a forum.
So, I think an attempt at reasonable brevity would be acceptable?
Kavi, yes, keeping answers concise and to the point keeps things interesting and helps fascilitate a true conversation.
any “good” deeds prior to then were considered filth.
On what scriptural basis do you say this? Even an idolater is capable of doing good for G-d, and being acknowledged for it, although it is misplaced goodness, and therefore somewhat a detriment. If you look at Moses’ father in law, he is such an example, as is Cyrus King of Persia whom G-d calls his moshiach. Cyrus was not a true monotheist, as he was a Zoroastrian, a believer in cosmic dualism.
You are jumping from a minor case (deeds as filthy rags) to a major (by believing that men are fully corrupt in need of a divine savior. This just doesn’t follow from Torah Kavi.
Your view also negates scriptural teaching on free agency. If G-d’s intervention is required for G-dliness among humans, there is no free will.
“any “good” deeds prior to then were considered filth”
Kevi, that’s interesting, because it appears to contradict what G-d said very early in the Bible regarding our ability to do good and overcome the bad:
Notice also that it’s DOING what is right which makes you acceptable to G-d. Faith/believing in G-d has little to do with it (it’s taken for granted), although if you have placed your trust in a false god (e.g. Jesus) and are worshiping it, you are “doing” idol-worship, not merely believing.
Hi Kavi, please read those bible verse in context…
Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and WORKETH RIGHTEOUSNESS, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for WE HAVE SINNED: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Here in Isaiah 64, those who sinned are talking, it does not mean the whole world. Yes we have all sinned, but G-d forgives our sins, he is not like man (Psa 103) and said himself that he will not remember our past sins (Eze 18).
Psalm 14 and 145 talks about the FOOLS that forgot G-d, not everybody.
Also, in the Garden of Eden, G-d promise the descendents of the women (Note that Galatians 3:16 said seed means Jesus, but the word Zara has no plural, thus Paul (Shaul) deliberately say something that he knew was wrong to gentiles that did not speak Hebrew) will crush the seprent (here it talks of a literal serpent, I don’t see Satan there like xtians say) You have to put your xtians interpretation in the text to arrive at the conclusion of a future redeemer in this text.
–“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”
(Isaiah 64:6)
CR and Remi– Isaiah includes himself when he says “All of us . . .”
____________________________________________________________
—“HaShem looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after Elohim.
—They have all turned aside;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.” Psalm 14:2-3
CR– G-d includes not only the fools, but then looks at all the children of men. “There is none who does good”
___________________________________________________________
–“If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it. (Genesis 4:7)
Gene– In context, what G-d is commanding Cain to do is to offer the same blood sacrifice as his brother Abel.
Nothing about blood there – it’s about doing good and not sinning. His sacrifice was rejected because it was brought with a wrong motive and without repentance – in the Temple there were all sorts of vegetable sacrifices and the poor who could not afford animals could offer flour instead (which means that it’s not blood that G-d require most, but repentance and inner change).
Hi Kavi, where do you get that Abel offering (not sacrifice) was accepted because of the blood? As I said, according to Hebrews, Cain offering was not accepted because his intent was wrong and had no faith. I think his offering was not accepted because he did it with the wrong intent. Probably Abel decided to make an offering, then Cain decided to do it to out of obligation. Then when G-d rebuked him, he thought it was Abel’s fault, because in the first place, if he did not offered offering, he would not have felt obliged to offer something as well and burst in anger at his brother and killed him. It has nothing to do with blood offering over grain offering. G-d loves when we bring the first of our fruit to him. He did not have any sheep, because he was not a shepherded.
For Isaiah, G-d said that he loves the righteous, G-d rebuked Judah and as a whole, Judah was considered a filthy rag because of his idolatry. It does not mean that Isaiah was considered as a filthy rag, but that as a whole, the population of Judah was lacking and received the curse of Deuteronomy.
For Psalm 14, I doubt that David included himself. He saw the people around and realized that when there is no fear of G-d, everybody does oppression. There is no one good. It does not include himself obviously. And just as G-d forgave David without offering (Psalm 51) we therefore can be, not blameless, but considered right in the eyes of G-d.
“Psalm 14:2-3”
Did you read the whole psalm, Kevi? Those who are sinning are fools who rejected G-d, the evildoers, and in particular the nations of the earth who have been oppressing Israel. Notice in this psalm the distinction G-d makes between the evildoers and His people:
“Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the L-rd?
There they are in great terror,
for G-d is with the generation of the righteous.”
Only the evildoers are the ones in error, all of them, while G-d is with the righteous people. Who are the righteous if everyone on earth is supposedly “evil”? Context and common sense please!!!!
Gene, you should say that to Paul…
“Gene, you should say that to Paul…”
Remi, I strongly doubt that I will ever meet that deceiver of a man.
Kavi, the “all of us” doesn’t necisarily mean that all the people are wicked, it can refer to indifference as well. Saints can be very righteous, and sinners very sinful, but if the righteous sit idly by not rebuking the acts of wicked people, then they can share (to a lesser extent) in the fate of the wicked. We see this (again) in the Sodom and Gammorah story, and in the calf episode.
You are imputing a cosmic struggle between light and darkness (via Paul,) into Torah, but this isn’t the plain unambiguous teaching of the Torah. Torah says G-d forms light and creates darkness. Your system creates a competitor with G-d, namely Satan. Satan in Tanach is G-d’s instrument, not his adversary or competition.
Cain was angry because HaShem did not accept his offering and, in his anger, killed his brother Abel.
Yes, there are a number of theories [some quite debauched] as to why Cain murdered Abel.
However, the most straightforward understanding is that HaShem requires faith in doing His Word. From Gan Eden, mankind disobeyed God’s Word and sinned.
Then God set the pattern when an animal was slain to “cover” mankind’s sin [i.e., the dead animal’s skin clothing rather than foliage]– not that the dead animal actually in itself took away sins, but the faith that accompanied it did.
That faith in HaShem is what Abel believed and followed through on– Cain did not offer an acceptable sacrifice because he wanted his own path to righteousness rather than faith in HaShem’s way.
Reference from Genesis 4:
_______________________________________________________
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to HaShem. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.
HaShem looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering He did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
Then HaShem said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
In addition to Psalm 14 and Isaiah 64, we also have our third witness [according to the Law]:
Ecclesiastes 7:20
—-“For there is not a just man on earth that does good and does not sin.”
Alright, Kavi…Are you ready for this? I apologize for the grit in my response, but it’s a response that I have given to christians in the past that has worked well against the misconceptions that the NT has made concerning the supposed “necessity for blood.”
Your assertion that Israel cannot atone for sin without “jesus blood” couldn’t be farther from the truth…Nowhere in the Tanach does it even hint that “jesus blood” is needed for Israel to receive forgiveness of sin from Hashem.
Leviticus 17:11 states that blood animal sacrifice is one way to atone for sin. However, it does not state that blood sacrifice is the only way to atone for sin…(also, note that “jesus blood” is also not mentioned here…Only animal blood!)
The prophet Daniel stood righteous before Hashem without a Temple. He didn’t need “jesus blood” or jesus in any fashion on order to stand righteous before Hashem.
Ezekiel 14:14 even if these three men–Noah, Daniel and Job–were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD.
You see, Daniel received forgiveness for his sins INDEPENDENT of jesus during the first exile. He did this by praying and sincerely repenting before Hashem. Daniel 6:11 states that he even did this in the face of death! Clearly, Daniel knew that his sincere repentance to Hashem brought him back to righteousness.
He was simply following the words of Jeremiah!
The context of Jeremiah 29 concerns what G-d expects of us during the exile in order to merit the rebuilding of the Holy Temple. Consider what is said in Jeremiah 29:12-14
Jeremiah 29:12. And you shall call Me and go and pray to Me, and I will hearken to you.
Jeremiah 29:13. And you will seek Me and find [Me] for you will seek Me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:14. And I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will return your captivity and gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will return you to the place whence I exiled you.
G-d expected that the Israelites would pray to Him while in Babylon. The result of their prayers and repentance allowed them to return to the land and rebuild the Holy Temple.
This is precisely what Daniel did…
And this is precisely what Orthodox Jews do today! Hosea gives us a similar message:
Hosea 3:4. For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor seraphim.
Hosea 3:5. Afterwards shall the children of Israel RETURN, and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.
How do we return to Hashem if we do not have any sacrifices? Hosea tells us in Hosea 14:2-3!
Hosea 14:2. RETURN, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have STUMBLED IN YOUR INIQUITY.
Clearly, the subject of the next verse explains HOW Israel is supposed to RETURN to Hashem so that OUR INIQUITIES WILL BE FORGIVEN. Of course, the next verse explains just that!
Hosea 14:3 Take WORDS with yourselves and RETURN TO THE LORD. Say, “YOU SHALL FORGIVE ALL INIQUITY and teach us [the] good [way], and let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips.
Even though we have stumbled in our iniquity and have been put into exile, we still have a means of returning to Hashem though our sincere PRAYERS. We take our words and return to Hashem by saying; “FORGIVE ALL INIQUITY.” Nothing in Hosea 14:2-3 indicates that we need the blood of animals in order to atone for our sins during the exile. And most importantly, NOTHING in Hosea 14:2-3 says we need the blood of jesus!
This is why Daniel was able to stand righteous before Hashem, praying three times a day, despite the fact that he knew he would be thrown into a pit of lions if he continued to do so. Yet he continued to do so in the face of death! (Daniel 6:11)
If the Jewish people did not need “jesus blood” to merit the rebuilding of the Holy Temple during the first exile, then why would we need it now?!
Hebrews 9:22 is a false statement. It erroneously claims that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.”
Lets take a look at II Chronicles 30:16-20 where it is HEZEKIAH’S PRAYER and NOT BLOOD which ATONES for the sins of the people…
II Chronicles 30:16. And they stood in their station as was their custom, according to the Torah of Moses, the man of God; the priests sprinkled the blood from the hand of the Levites.
II Chronicles 30:17. For there were many among the congregation who had not consecrated themselves, and the Levites were in charge of the slaughter of the Passover sacrifices for everyone who was unclean, to make it holy for the Lord.
II Chronicles 30:18. For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not purified themselves, for they ate the Passover sacrifice not as it is written, for **Hezekiah had PRAYED**for them, saying, **”MAY THE GOOD LORD ATONE FOR**
II Chronicles 30:19. anyone who has set his whole heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his forefathers, though [he be] not [cleaned] according to the purity that pertains the holy things.”
II Chronicles 30:20. **And THE LORD HEARKENED TO HEZEKIAH and HEALED the people.**
The Hebrew word יְכַפֵּר is used in verse 18. It means ATONE! Here we see that in the case of Hezekiah’s passover, many of his Israelite guests DID NOT cleanse themselves with BLOOD according to the Law of Moses. In order to ATONE for the sins of his people, King Hezekiah PRAYED TO HASHEM that he should grant ATONEMENT for all those in his Kingdom who truly turned their hearts to Hashem. Now, to further expand on this…In verse 16, it clearly states that the Levites were in charge of sprinkling BLOOD to purify Israel as it is stated in the Torah of Moses…Now, verses 17 and 18 say that there were many in Israel WHO DID NOT PURIFY THEMSELVES WITH THE **BLOOD** AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH! When someone disobeys a Law in the Torah, what do we call that? We call it a SIN! Here, there were individuals who SINNED by NOT being purified by the LEVITICAL PRIESTS OF THE HOLY TEMPLE with BLOOD! Now, according to Hebrews 9:22, the only way to ATONE FOR SIN is through BLOOD! But here, the sin that was committed was that they DIDN’T use blood for atonement…So how is this sin atoned for?
According to Hebrew 9:22, it has to be blood! But is that how this sin was atoned for? NO! Their sins were atoned for in this manner:
II Chronicles 30:18 **Hezekiah had PRAYED**for them, saying, **”MAY THE GOOD LORD ATONE FOR**
II Chronicles 30:19. anyone who has set his whole heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his forefathers, though [he be] not [cleaned] according to the purity that pertains the holy things.”
II Chronicles 30:20. **And THE LORD HEARKENED TO HEZEKIAH and HEALED the people.**
The sin of those not purified with the blood was atoned for through PRAYER! Thus, Hebrews 9:22 is an inaccurate statement…
And if you are still skeptical about atonement without blood, The Hebrew word יִּרְפָּא is used in verse 20 for the word “healed.” The root of this word is רְפָּא which means heal. Amazingly, this same root is used in Isaiah 53:5
Isaiah 53:5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were **HEALED.**
The Hebrew word נִרְפָּא is used in verse Isaiah 53:5 for the word “healed.” This shares the SAME ROOT with יִּרְפָּא as shown above. In both cases, (Isaiah 53:5 and II Chronicles 30:20) a form of the word רְפָּא is used for the word “healed.”
Clearly, there are circumstances in which atonement can be made through PRAYER, particularly when blood sacrifice is not immediately available…
II Chronicles 33:9-13 demonstrates this same principle:
II Chronicles 33:9-13: “And Manasseh led Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem astray to do what was evil, more than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed from before the Children of Israel. And the Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people, but they did not listen. And the Lord brought upon them the generals of the king of Assyria, and they seized Manasseh with hooks and bound him with copper chains and brought him to Babylon. And when he was distressed, he entreated the Lord his God, and he humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And he PRAYED to Him, and He accepted his prayer, and He heard his supplication and He restored him to Jerusalem to his kingdom, and Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.”
Here we see that Manasseh used PRAYER to receive forgiveness of his sins as well. We see that when blood sacrifice is not available, prayer is a valid method of atonement for sin. Also keep in mind that under Manasseh’s rule, the kingdom of Judah was more idolatrous than it had ever been in the past! Clearly, Manasseh’s prayer served as a means of forgiveness/atonement without blood sacrifice and most importantly, without jesus!
Here we have a cause and effect: King Manasseh says a prayer asking for forgiveness and G-d accepts his prayer and restores him as King of Judah. No blood sacrifice was used to atone for King Manasseh as there is nothing in the text that would indicate such.
This proves that Hebrews 9:22 is a false statement. Blood sacrifice is not the only way to atone for sin. Your jesus has nothing to with our atonement.
May Israel merit the rebuilding of the Holy Temple and the reinstatement of the Levitical sacrificial system through our sincere prayer and repentance, speedily in our days!
Shalom
Also Kavi, concerning Abel I would like you to consider this:
Fact: Abel did not believe in jesus as his “lord in savior” in order to be counted as righteous.
So why are you comparing your faith to Abel’s faith?
Fact: Your jesus and his blood are not mentioned as a remedy for sin in the Tanach.
Thus, your understanding of salvation and atonement of sin is completely foreign to G-d’s word.
Shalom
Also Kavi, consider this:
Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity.
We do have the ability to merit righteousness through Torah. Being “sinless” clearly isn’t a prerequisite for righteousness necessarily, as Proverbs 24:16 makes abundantly clear…
And so does Deuteronomy 6:25…
Deut 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.
So being righteous clearly has nothing to do with the “belief in jesus as your lord and savior” or the idea of jesus dying and his blood supposedly atoning for the sins of the word…
Rather, we merit righteousness through our following of Torah!
Also Kavi, concerning the New Covenant of Jeremiah, going straight to the source, lets go to Jeremiah 31:30
“30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the **house of Israel and with the house of Judah,** a new covenant.
31. Not like the covenant that I formed with **their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt,** that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
32. For this is the covenant that I will form **with the house of Israel** after those days, says the Lord: I will place **My law** in their midst and **I will inscribe it upon their hearts,** and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.”
The passage says that the New Covenant will be made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. This says nothing about the gentiles. I am aware that the NT attempts to reconcile this by saying that the gentiles were “grafted in” via Jesus. However, Jeremiah 31:31 explicitly states “Not like the covenant that I formed with **THEIR FOREFATHERS** on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the **LAND OF EGYPT,** that they broke my covenant.” This New Covenant will not be with the gentiles because G-d did not make a covenant with the forefathers of the gentiles. Thus, this New Covenant will be made only with people who are under the Mosaic covenant. (The Jewish people.)
Verse 32 says ” I will place **My law** in their midst and **I will inscribe it upon their hearts,** What does it mean for G-d to inscribe His law upon the hearts of the house of Israel? This is explained in verse 33.
33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.
The primary difference between the Mosiac Covenant and the New Covenant is that *G-d Himself* will put the law on all of the hearts of the House of Israel so that we will not have to TEACH the law to each other. You see, under the Mosaic covenant, we are required to teach the law to each other. I believe Deuteronomy 6:6-7 demonstrates this most clearly.
Deut 6:6. And these words, which I command you this day, **shall be upon your heart.**
Deut 6:7. **And you shall TEACH** them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
It is important to note that even the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of the heart. The New Covenant is not different from the Mosaic covenant in this respect. Rather, as Jeremiah 31:33 explains, what makes the New Covenant “new” is the mode of transmission: G-d Himself will put the law directly on our hearts so that we will not have to TEACH the law to each other. This is a future prophesy that has not come to fruition yet. Deut 30:1-6 echoes this idea:
Deut 30:1. And it will be, when all these things come upon you the blessing and the curse which I have set before you that you will consider in your heart, among all the nations where the Lord your God has banished you,
Deut 30:2. and you will return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and you will listen to His voice according to all that I am commanding you this day you and your children,
Deut 30:3. then, the Lord, your God, will bring back your exiles, and He will have mercy upon you. He will once again gather you from all the nations, where the Lord, your God, had dispersed you.
Deut 30:4. Even if your exiles are at the end of the heavens, the Lord, your God, will gather you from there, and He will take you from there.
Deut 30:5. And the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land which your forefathers possessed, and you [too] will take possession of it, and He will do good to you, and He will make you more numerous than your forefathers.
Deut 30:6. And the Lord, your God, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, [so that you may] love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, for the sake of your life.
As you can see by verse 4, this passage refers to the redemption after the final exile. Also, note that G-d says in verse 6 that He will “circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring.” This is precisely what Jeremiah was saying in Jeremiah 31:33!
Jeremiah 31:33 And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord,
This is in contrast to the Mosiac Covenant, which is discussed in Deut 6:6-7, where G-d instructs Israel to TEACH the Law to our offspring.
Deut 6:6. And these words, which I command you this day, **shall be upon your heart.**
Deut 6:7. **And you shall TEACH** them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.
The very fact that we are having this debate right now is a testament to the fact that the New Covenant has not been made with anyone. Jews would not have to teach each other to “know the Lord” under this New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:33, Deut 30:6) It is a future covenant which has nothing to do with the death of jesus.
You need not worry about the salvation of the gentiles as Tanach says what will happen with them at the end of days:
Zechariah 8:20. So said the Lord of Hosts: [There will] yet [be a time] that peoples and the inhabitants of many cities shall come.
Zechariah 8:21. And the inhabitants of one shall go to another, saying, “Let us go to pray before the Lord and to entreat the Lord of Hosts. I, too, will go.”
Zechariah 8:22. And many peoples and powerful nations shall come to entreat the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.
Zechariah 8:23. So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”
You see Kavi, Jews have a duty to be an Or L’Goyim. Instead, you have chosen to follow darkness and falsehood.
Jeremiah 16:19. O Lord, Who are my power and my strength and my refuge in the day of trouble, to You nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, “Only lies have our fathers handed down to us, emptiness in which there is nothing of any avail!
Those same goyim you went to in order to be “saved” by jesus will be shocked to learn that they have inherited lies concerning the supposed “divinity” and “messiahship” of jesus.
Isaiah 56 also speaks of the goyim in a Messianic context:
Isaiah 56:1. So says the Lord, “Keep justice and practice righteousness, for My salvation is near to come, and My benevolence to be revealed.”
Isaiah 56:2. Fortunate is the man who will do this and the person who will hold fast to it, he who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it and guards his hand from doing any evil.
Isaiah 56:3. Now let not the foreigner who joined the Lord, say, “The Lord will surely separate me from His people,” and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
Isaiah 56:4. For so says the Lord to the eunuchs who will keep My Sabbaths and will choose what I desire and hold fast to My covenant,
Isaiah 56:5. “I will give them in My house and in My walls a place and a name, better than sons and daughters; an everlasting name I will give him, which will not be discontinued.
Isaiah 56:6. And the foreigners who join with the Lord to serve Him and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, everyone who observes the Sabbath from profaning it and who holds fast to My covenant.
Isaiah 56:7. I will bring them to My holy mount, and I will cause them to rejoice in My house of prayer, their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon My altar, for My house shall be called a house of prayer **FOR ALL PEOPLES.**
So the Tanach has a plan for the goyim…And a very positive one at that! As long as they follow in the ways of G-d.
Drop jesus and get Torah!
Shalom and G-d bless!
Dear YI,
Wow! That is a lot of good information to take in at once!
It may take me awhile to get to everything, but let’s start with just one key item.
__________________________________________________________
Hebrews 9:22 actually reads,
—-“Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
Although I know that Hebrews 9:22 is occasionally mistranslated (and, more often, misquoted) to exclude the word σχεδόν [which means, “almost or “nearly”], most translations of the B’rit Hadashah do not propagate that error. Examining the correct translation removes the type of confusion mentioned.
So, we see that Hebrews 9:22 is reliable.
____________________________________________________________
PS> Just to make sure everyone understands [including latecomers], I haven’t yet been able to talk about the blood of Yeshuah HaMashiach. Yet, perhaps it might be nice sometime to move on toward that subject, but I’m not quite sure how to fit it in with the original question :)
“examining the correct translation removes the type of confusion mentioned.”
Um, no, it doesn’t. What’s important is not the statement about “almost everything is purified with blood”, but “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Most purification that was done in the Temple had nothing to do with sin and concerned with ritual purity after being defiled by things outside of one’s control (e.g. menstruation, emission of seed, touching something dead, etc). So, the anonymous “Hebrews” author distorted Torah by claiming that without blood sins are not forgiven. That’s an obvious lie since it can be shown to not be the case throughout the Bible. What conclusions then must an honest person draw from this?
Gene, we’ve seen responses like Kavi’s before somewhere haven’t we?
Here’s the problem with Kavi’s interpretation of Hebrews 9:22…If Hebrews 9:22 is that ALMOST all things are atoned for through blood, (ignoring the second part of the verse which says otherwise) then jesus died in vain! Why? Because there are clearly OTHER WAYS TO ATONE FOR SIN! This means that jesus is not “the only way to the father.” Which means that jesus was a false prophet!
This is why Dr. Michael Brown stands his ground in Hebrews 9:22 meaning exactly what it says: “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” Dr. Brown doesn’t make exceptions because he knows if he does, he will be undermining jesus’s words. Of course, this is contradictory to the Tanach, but clearly to a christian, the NT takes precedence unfortunately…
So Kavi has chosen to undermine jesus’s words himself, making jesus out to be a false prophet.
It always fascinates me to see christians attempt to reconcile their flawed theology with the Tanach, only to end up contradicting their own NT in the process.
Maybe it’s time to throw out the NT, Kavi…
Dear YI and Gene,
Gentlemen, let’s see
if we can understand what our first century writers were writing about— after
all, they lived and breathed the Tanakh and the Temple still stood in their
midst during their days :)
So, continuing from yesterday, we see that
they wrote in Hebrews 9:22,
"Indeed, under the law almost
everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is
no forgiveness of sins."
Now, let’s add to this writing their other key thoughts expounded
in book of Hebrews (note: Cross References follow afterward):
(a) The
first covenant is the Law
(b) The
first covenant had its purpose, but was limited—so Go-d had to establish a future
second covenant
(c) The
purpose of both covenants was to atone for sin
(d) The
first covenant was ratified with blood
(e) The
second covenant was ratified with blood
(f) The
first covenant was good, but imperfect. Indeed,
the first covenant was faulty and needed more than one means to atone for sin not
only “between” the most holy day of Yom Kippur, but Yom Kippur itself had to
take place every year— and, as you know, Yom Kippur required a blood sacrifice.
(g) The
second covenant was more perfect because it only needed one blood sacrifice—a perfect
one that did not involve animals or grain or incense:
***Psalm 40:6-8
Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have pierced;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.
Then I said, "Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
I delight to do Your
will, O my G-d; Your Law is within my heart."
***Isaiah 53
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of HaShem been
revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us
to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire
him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low
esteem.
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by G-d,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on
him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and HaShem has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment
he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the
living;
for the transgression of my people he was
punished.
He was assigned a
grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was HaShem’s will to crush him and
cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering
for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his
days,
and the will of HaShem will prosper in his
hand.
After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be
satisfied ;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will
justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
Cross
References to the above
insert:
(a) Hebrews 9:1-3 (reference Exodus 25:8-9,
etc)
—-Now the first
covenant had regulations for worship and also an
earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the
lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy
Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place.
(b) Hebrews 8:7 (reference Jeremiah
31:27-34)
—-For if that
first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for
a second.
(c) Exodus 30:6-10
(Old Covenant) and Jeremiah 31:34 (New Covenant)
(d) Exodus 24:8
—-And Moses took
the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the
covenant that HaShem has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
(e) Hebrews 9:27-28
(reference Ezekiel 18:4)
—-And just as it
is appointed for people to die once — and after this, judgment — so also the Messiah, having been offered once to bear the sins
of many, will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to
those who are waiting for Him.
(f) Hebrews 9:7 (reference
Exodus 30:10 + Jeremiah 31:33-34)
—-But only the
high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never
without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins
the people had committed in ignorance.
__________________________________________________________
Kavi, you know that nobody in antiquity was really sure who exactly wrote Hebrews? Consider what I found in answer to a common question on authorship of this epistle on a standard Google search.
“I’ll not address the authorship issue – it is somewhat beside the point in any argument on canonicity. It seems that your correspondent has two main arguments: 1) style; 2) theology.”
Does it sound reasonable to you to accept a book as the word of G-d when we don’t even know precisely who wrote it? To me, it’s not beside the point of canonicity, it’s an essential aspect, particularly when considering what Scripture says in Amos 3:7.
Hebrews denigrates the Tanach as “old” and “vanishing away,” BUT……… judaism is still here, and still very much strong despite this book’s erroneous replacement theology.
The book contradicts proverbs 6:23 by saying that the law of Moses is broken, and the people didn’t know. G-d even says explicitly in Deuteronomy 28 & 30 not to turn away from the law THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU THIS DAY. There is very little reason to trust the canonicity of Hebrews.
The NT makes the Anachronistic claim that the Torah points (and leads) as a schoolmaster to Jesus, but at the same time claims (Via Hebrews) that Torah by itself is inadequate to this task. That’s a full contradiction. A boat with holes in it cannot be said to lead you safely to dry land, yet this is the claim. The author sounds like a Greek, almost marcionite in approach.
CR,
Thank you for taking some time to read the most recent post.
I am getting ready for work this morning, so let’s try to quickly address a few items without getting too much into details:
(a) Yes, opinions naturally vary, yet does the book of Hebrews advocate truth?
(b) The book of Hebrews is a treatise to be taken as a whole—all readers (including myself) would need to read it in its entirety to have a sound basis for criticism (which, as I’m sure you would agree, is only fair to author(s) past or present).
(c) Judaism is indeed here today—and the Nations/Gentiles—as well as those who believe G-d’s promise of redemption through the second convenant— a second covenant fulfilled through Yeshua, G-d’s promised Mashiach.
(d) The book of Hebrews does not contradict the Tanakh—G-d Himself knows that mankind cannot keep the Law (hence the need for the second covenant identified by the prophet Jeremiah and further prophesied through Moses, David, Isaiah, and others). For example, as Moses speaks in the Law:
—-Deuteronomy 18:18-19
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto you, and will put My Words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My Words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”
(e) G-d is Holy. If we want to be honest before Him, of the 613 Mitvot that are required to be obeyed 24/7, can you or I or anyone actually say we keep the Law?
(f) The Law shows how unholy we are—even our righteousness is “as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6)
Kavi, you appear to have ignored the fact that your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 undermines the entire message of jesus…namely that he is supposedly “the only way to the father.” Instead, you have brought up several other passages, straying away from the original topic. I will address these, but just know that as it is now, your interpretation of Hebrews 9:22 leaves room for other means of atonement outside of blood, which makes the supposed “ultimate atoning death of jesus” completely unnecessary in addition to the fact that jesus claiming that he is the “only way to the father” being a false statement, thus, making jesus a false prophet…
Concerning the New Covenant of Jeremiah, going straight to the source, lets go to Jeremiah 31:30
“30. Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the **house of Israel and with the house of Judah,** a new covenant.
31. Not like the covenant that I formed with **their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt,** that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord.
32. For this is the covenant that I will form **with the house of Israel** after those days, says the Lord: I will place **My law** in their midst and **I will inscribe it upon their hearts,** and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.”
The passage says that the New Covenant will be made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. This says nothing about the gentiles. I am aware that the NT attempts to reconcile this by saying that the gentiles were “grafted in” via Jesus. However, Jeremiah 31:31 explicitly states “Not like the covenant that I formed with **THEIR FOREFATHERS** on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the **LAND OF EGYPT,** that they broke my covenant.” This New Covenant will not be with the gentiles because G-d did not make a covenant with the forefathers of the gentiles. Thus, this New Covenant will be made only with people who are under the Mosaic covenant. (The Jewish people.)
Verse 32 says ” I will place **My law** in their midst and **I will inscribe it upon their hearts,** What does it mean for G-d to inscribe His law upon the hearts of the house of Israel? This is explained in verse 33.
33. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.
The primary difference between the Mosiac Covenant and the New Covenant is that *G-d Himself* will put the law on all of the hearts of the House of Israel so that we will not have to TEACH the law to each other. You see, under the Mosaic covenant, we are required to teach the law to each other. I believe Deuteronomy 6:6-7 demonstrates this most clearly.
Deut 6:6. And these words, which I command you this day, **shall be upon your heart.**
Deut 6:7. **And you shall TEACH** them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
It is important to note that even the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of the heart. The New Covenant is not different from the Mosaic covenant in this respect. Rather, as Jeremiah 31:33 explains, what makes the New Covenant “new” is the mode of transmission: G-d Himself will put the law directly on our hearts so that we will not have to TEACH the law to each other. This is a future prophesy that has not come to fruition yet. Deut 30:1-6 echoes this idea:
Deut 30:1. And it will be, when all these things come upon you the blessing and the curse which I have set before you that you will consider in your heart, among all the nations where the Lord your God has banished you,
Deut 30:2. and you will return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and you will listen to His voice according to all that I am commanding you this day you and your children,
Deut 30:3. then, the Lord, your God, will bring back your exiles, and He will have mercy upon you. He will once again gather you from all the nations, where the Lord, your God, had dispersed you.
Deut 30:4. Even if your exiles are at the end of the heavens, the Lord, your God, will gather you from there, and He will take you from there.
Deut 30:5. And the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land which your forefathers possessed, and you [too] will take possession of it, and He will do good to you, and He will make you more numerous than your forefathers.
Deut 30:6. And the Lord, your God, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, [so that you may] love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, for the sake of your life.
As you can see by verse 4, this passage refers to the redemption after the final exile. Also, note that G-d says in verse 6 that He will “circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring.” This is precisely what Jeremiah was saying in Jeremiah 31:33!
Jeremiah 31:33 And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord,
This is in contrast to the Mosiac Covenant, which is discussed in Deut 6:6-7, where G-d instructs Israel to TEACH the Law to our offspring.
Deut 6:6. And these words, which I command you this day, **shall be upon your heart.**
Deut 6:7. **And you shall TEACH** them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.
The very fact that we are having this debate right now is a testament to the fact that the New Covenant has not been made with anyone. Jews would not have to teach each other to “know the Lord” under this New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:33, Deut 30:6) It is a future covenant which has nothing to do with the death of jesus.
Shalom and G-d bless!
Concerning Isaiah 53, in order to determine who the servant is, we need to look at the context. Isaiah 49:3-6 is a good place to start.
Isaiah 49:3. And He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast.”
Isaiah 49:4. And I said, “I toiled in vain, I consumed my strength for nought and vanity.” Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God.
Isaiah 49:5. And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength.
Isaiah 49:6. And He said, “It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth.”
So how is this reconciled? How can Israel bring back Israel? The answer is simple! Isaiah 49:3 refers to a specific part of Israel, namely the righteous remnant. (G-d promised a righteous remnant of Israel throughout all generations.) Verse 5 refers to the remnant bringing back the rest of Israel back to righteousness. And finally, verse 6 refers to the newly restored Israel being “light to the nations” through the revelation of truth through Hashem.
In other words, this is a two step process:
1. The righteous remnant of Israel will bring back the rest of Israel to righteousness. (Isaiah 49:3-5)
2. The newly restored nation of Israel will serve to be a “light to the nations.” (Isaiah 49:6)
So ultimately, the nation of Israel is the servant who will be “a light unto the nations.” However, in order to get to that point, the righteous remnant of Israel will first gather back the rest of Israel back to Torah. It’s a two step process.
The servant is the righteous remnant of ISRAEL.
Isaiah 51:7. Hearken to Me, you who know righteousness, a people that has My Torah in their heart, fear not reproach of man, and from their revilings be not dismayed.
This is yet another verse which highlights the suffering of G-d righteous servant, Israel. Isaiah 54 even refers to the “SERVANTS of the Lord”!
Isaiah 54:17. Any weapon whetted against you shall not succeed, and any tongue that contends with you in judgment, you shall condemn; this is the heritage of the SERVANTS OF THE LORD and their due reward from Me, says the Lord.
Isaiah 52:15 describes the gentiles kings who will shut their mouths because of their astonishment of Israel’s vindication by Hashem:
Isaiah 52:15 So shall he cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed.
Micah 7:16-17 echoes this sentiment:
Micah 7:16. Nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might-they shall place a hand upon their mouth; their ears shall become deaf.
Micah 7:17. They shall lick the dust as a snake, as those who crawl on the earth. They shall quake from their imprisonment; they shall fear the Lord, our God, and they shall fear you.
Also, Isaiah 60:14 speaks of the future Israel who was previously despised by the nations as being vindicated at the end of days, also echoing in line with the suffering/despised servant of Isaiah 53:
Isaiah 60:14 And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and **THOSE WHO DESPISED YOU** shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet, and they shall call you ‘the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
So there you have it. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 ultimately is the nation of Israel.
Shalom
And Kavi, I guess you disagree with this verse then:
Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity.
We do have the ability to merit righteousness through Torah. Being “sinless” clearly isn’t a prerequisite for righteousness necessarily, as Proverbs 24:16 makes abundantly clear…
But apparently you disagree…
Here is another verse from Torah explaining that our righteousness is attained through our following of of Torah:
Deuteronomy 6:25 And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’
And here is another passage in Deuteronomy which elaborates on our obedience to Torah:
Deut 30:10. when you obey the Lord, your God, to observe His commandments and His statutes written in this Torah scroll, [and] when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deut 30:11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
Deut 30:12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?”
Deut 30:13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?”
Deut 30:14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
Hashem claims that we can fulfill Torah! Contrast this with paul’s false message that no matter how hard we try, we will never be able to fulfill what Hashem expects of us. This is contradictory to Deut 30:10-14. G-d says we CAN fulfill what He expects of us. Your paul claims we need jesus. Who are you going to believe? Hashem or paul?
Kick paul to the curb. Torah is truth! I pray that you will come back to the one true G-d of Israel and acknowledge paul and jesus as the false prophets they are!
Shalom
And Kavi, concerning Deut 18:18-19, Deut 18:15-19 refers to Joshua in the immediate context and all subsequent prophets after him. Lets look at Deut 18:15 and 18:18 more closely:
Deut 18:15 [Moses speaking] “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet **LIKE ME** from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him…
Ok, so now we need to establish the context of what it means to be “LIKE” Moses. Verse 18 establishes this context concerning this particular chapter:
Deut 18:18 [God speaking] ‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen **LIKE YOU,** [Like Moses] **and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.**
So what does it mean to be LIKE Moses in this context? Simple! All at it means is that the prophet will SPEAK THE WORDS THAT GOD COMMANDS HIM. That’s all! Now, what prophet do we know in the Bible who fits this description?
Every prophet in the Bible speaks the word of God…That’s the definition of a prophet!
So who does this apply to? ALL PROPHETS! But in the immediate context, it applies to Joshua, since he was Joshua’s successor. The Book of Joshua gives us explicit proof of this:
Joshua 1:5. No man shall stand up before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so shall I be with you. I will not weaken My grasp on you nor will I abandon you.
Joshua 1:16. And they answered Joshua saying: All that you have commanded us we shall do and wherever you send us we shall go.
Joshua 1:17. Just as we obeyed Moses in everything, so shall we obey you. Only that the Lord your God be with you as He was with Moses.
Joshua 3:7. And the Lord said to Joshua: This day I will begin to make you great in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that as I was with Moses, so will I be with you.
Joshua 4:14. On that day the Lord made Joshua great in the sight of all Israel, and they feared him, as they had feared Moses, all the days of his life.
Joshua 11:15. As the Lord commanded Moses His servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses.
I would argue that there is no prophet in the entire Bible who is compared to Moses as much as Joshua. I challenge you to show me otherwise…
We can also use grammatical consistency to demonstrate that Deut 18:18 does not refer to only one prophet, but rather, the general concept of “prophets” who succeeded Moses. Lets look at the verses again:
Deut 18:17. And the Lord said to me, “They have done well in what they have spoken.
Deut 18:18. I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.
Deut 18:19. And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him.
These verses describe “the prophet like Moses” who you deem to be one singular individual, namely, the Messiah. (Or in your case, Jesus.) Knowing this, lets keep reading on:
Deut 18:20. But the prophet who intentionally speaks a word in My name, which I did not command him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.
Deut 18:21. Now if you say to yourself, “How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?”
Deut 18:22. If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.
I want you to look at words. Look at the grammar concerning the fact that both “the prophet like Moses” and “the false prophet” are referred to in the third person SINGULAR.
If we are to be grammatically consistent with your interpretation of Deut 18:18, namely that “the prophet like Moses” only refers to one singular person, shouldn’t we also interpret Deut 18:20-22 in the same way concerning “the false prophet”? Shouldn’t we also say that there will only be “one false prophet”? If you want to be grammatically consistent with the passage, this is really your only option. Do you really want to interpret Deut 18:20-22 as referring to only one false prophet? Surely you don’t believe that…
I get that you really want to force this passage to exclusively refer to the Messiah. However, this is clearly not the case.
Shalom
“(a) The
first covenant is the Law ”
There are many other covenants made. The first covenant was with Noah.
“(c) The
purpose of both covenants was to atone for sin”
Are you sure that it is the main reason of the Mosaic covenant. I would say that this covenant was meant to have a kingdom of priest. To sanctify Israel for them to serve G-d, that is the main purpose of the Mosaic Covenant, in my opinion.
“first covenant was good, but imperfect. ”
God does not make imperfect things.
“Indeed,
the first covenant was faulty ”
If G-d is perfect, he does not make a “Better covenant” he makes it right in the first place. He is perfect and makes things right the first time.
Yom Kippur
The goat that takes away the sin is not sacrificed and no blood is shed. The one that is killed is for the impurity of the temple, not for the sins of the people…
“(g) The
second covenant was more perfect”
God is perfect and what he does is perfect the first time. You cannot add to something perfect, only you say that G-d learns from his mistakes?
” because it only needed one blood sacrifice—a perfect
one that did not involve animals or grain or incense.”
Jesus was not sacrificed on the altar, how can we put our trust in such a sacrifice? If Jesus was under the law, then he could not sacrifice himself, it needed to follow the law and only clean animal could be sacrificed by the priest on the altar.
It appears I painted a landscape with a brush that was a bit too large :o
So, to be more specific:
[A] HaShem states only blood shed on an altar is sufficient to atone for a soul
***Leviticus 17:10-11
“If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”
[B] According to the Old Covenant, the Law specifically identifies atonement for all sins (intentional or unintentional) through the shedding of blood on the Holy Day of Atonement (aka Yom Kippur).
***From Leviticus 16 we read:
9 “And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for HaShem and use it as a sin offering,”
15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.”
16 “Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins.”
30 “For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before HaShem from all your sins.”
[C] Hebrews 9:22
–The writers of Hebrews were very aware that there were several kinds of atonement mentioned in the Law—however, in each of those other cases we find that they were no substitute for the Holy Day of Atonement.
[D] A Second Covenant is needed to replace the First Covenant of the Law
–Regardless of ones personal interpretation, Jeremiah 31 speaks of a Second Covenant because the First Covenant of the Law was insufficient:
***Jeremiah 31:31-34
“The days are coming,” declares HaShem,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them.”
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares HaShem.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their G-d,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know HaShem,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares HaShem.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
As further evidence, we also read:
***Psalm 40:6-8
“Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have pierced;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
I delight to do Your will, O my G-d; Your Law is within my heart.’”
And, also:
***Habakkuk 2:4
“Behold, as for the proud one,
His soul is not right within him;
But the righteous will live by his faith.”
Shalom
Kavi, apparently you neglected to read what I wrote concerning Leviticus 17:11…Just in case you missed it the first time, here it is again:
Leviticus 17:11 states that blood animal sacrifice is one way to atone for sin. However, it does not state that blood sacrifice is the only way to atone for sin…(also, note that “jesus blood” is also not mentioned here…Only animal blood!)
You also made this erroneous statement:
“HaShem states only blood shed on an altar is sufficient to atone for a soul”
As already noted, this statement is false. IT IS NOT ONLY BLOOD SHED on the altar that is sufficient to atone for a soul!* Leviticus 17:11 DOES NOT SAY “ONLY bloodshed.” In fact, Exodus 30:16 actually says that silver can atone for the soul!
Exodus 30:16 You shall take the **SILVER OF THE ATONEMENTS** from the children of Israel and use it for the work of the Tent of Meeting; **it shall be a remembrance for the children of Israel before the Lord, TO ATONE FOR YOUR SOULS.”**
So clearly, bloodshed is not the only way to atone.
Lets take a look at II Chronicles 30:16-20 where it is HEZEKIAH’S PRAYER and NOT BLOOD which ATONES for the sins of the people…
II Chronicles 30:16. And they stood in their station as was their custom, according to the Torah of Moses, the man of God; the priests sprinkled the blood from the hand of the Levites.
II Chronicles 30:17. For there were many among the congregation who had not consecrated themselves, and the Levites were in charge of the slaughter of the Passover sacrifices for everyone who was unclean, to make it holy for the Lord.
II Chronicles 30:18. For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not purified themselves, for they ate the Passover sacrifice not as it is written, for **Hezekiah had PRAYED**for them, saying, **”MAY THE GOOD LORD ATONE FOR**
II Chronicles 30:19. anyone who has set his whole heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his forefathers, though [he be] not [cleaned] according to the purity that pertains the holy things.”
II Chronicles 30:20. **And THE LORD HEARKENED TO HEZEKIAH and HEALED the people.**
The Hebrew word יְכַפֵּר is used in verse 18. It means ATONE! Here we see that in the case of Hezekiah’s passover, many of his Israelite guests DID NOT cleanse themselves with BLOOD according to the Law of Moses. In order to ATONE for the sins of his people, King Hezekiah PRAYED TO HASHEM that he should grant ATONEMENT for all those in his Kingdom who truly turned their hearts to Hashem. Now, to further expand on this…In verse 16, it clearly states that the Levites were in charge of sprinkling BLOOD to purify Israel as it is stated in the Torah of Moses…Now, verses 17 and 18 say that there were many in Israel WHO DID NOT PURIFY THEMSELVES WITH THE **BLOOD** AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH! When someone disobeys a Law in the Torah, what do we call that? We call it a SIN! Here, there were individuals who SINNED by NOT being purified by the LEVITICAL PRIESTS OF THE HOLY TEMPLE with BLOOD! Now, according to Hebrews 9:22, the only way to ATONE FOR SIN is through BLOOD! But here, the sin that was committed was that they DIDN’T use blood for atonement…So how is this sin atoned for?
According to Hebrew 9:22, it has to be blood! But is that how this sin was atoned for? NO! Their sins were atoned for in this manner:
II Chronicles 30:18 **Hezekiah had PRAYED**for them, saying, **”MAY THE GOOD LORD ATONE FOR**
II Chronicles 30:19. anyone who has set his whole heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his forefathers, though [he be] not [cleaned] according to the purity that pertains the holy things.”
II Chronicles 30:20. **And THE LORD HEARKENED TO HEZEKIAH and HEALED the people.**
The sin of those not purified with the blood was atoned for through PRAYER! Thus, Hebrews
9:22 is an inaccurate statement…
And if you are still skeptical about atonement without blood, The Hebrew word יִּרְפָּא is used in verse 20 for the word “healed.” The root of this word is רְפָּא which means heal. Amazingly, this same root is used in Isaiah 53:5
Isaiah 53:5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were **HEALED.**
The Hebrew word נִרְפָּא is used in verse Isaiah 53:5 for the word “healed.” This shares the SAME ROOT with יִּרְפָּא as shown above. In both cases, (Isaiah 53:5 and II Chronicles 30:20) a form of the word רְפָּא is used for the word “healed.”
Clearly, there are circumstances in which atonement can be made through PRAYER, particularly when blood sacrifice is not immediately available…
Shalom
Kavi–
What was Ezekiel’s concern?
Ezekiel the prophet, was a Cohen, a priest. That means atonement of his people would have been of utmost concern. And as a priest specifically as a priest in exile, if blood sacrifices on the altar were no longer possible as the sole means of forgiveness, it would have been intolerable to Ezekiel.
Ezekiel mentions blood in various contexts, 46 times, second only to Leviticus (72). Sometimes with respect to idolatry, murder, and the restored offering in the 3rd temple.
Ezekiel NOT ONCE…mentions the lack of blood sacrifice as a problem for personal salvation. There is not one lament of a now doomed people, lost and comdemned without a blood sacrifice.
Ezekiel IS concerned about the departure of G-d’s Shekinah from the temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, idolatry, corruption, the lack of Torah observance, lack of Justice, Mercy and such….
Ezekiel writes about a restored Temple, Priesthood, Sacrificial system and the Jewish people being redeemed for the sake of G-ds name and the return of the Divine Presence.
But he NEVER talks about blood sacrifice as something missing or being restored for us. It is about Hashem. A departing and returning Shekinah of Hashem.
He talks of a Jewish people wicked and corrupt…exiled
He talks of a geluah, a redeemed Jewish people, who now are observant and obey G-ds laws, statutes and ordinances.
Nothing…nothing about blood only sacrifices for forgiveness of sin being lost and then restored. Nor a messiah to come and be this once-for-all korban sacrifice.
Shalom!
Friends– Getting back to our discussion about atonement, we see:
[a] The Covenant of the Law addressed sin
[b] The Covenant of the Law was ratified with a blood sacrifice
[c] There are several methods and days of atonement mentioned in the Law, but the one day above all other days required a blood sacrifice—the most Holy Day of Atonement
[d] The most Holy Day of Atonement required the priests to offer up a blood sacrifice on behalf of themselves and the people
_____________________________
What is interesting is that blood atonement under the Law was imperfect because mankind is imperfect—
Afterall, why were all sorts of sacrifices continually being offered up throughout the year and from year to year? Mankind could not and cannot keep the Law!!
****Ecclesiastes 7:20
—“For there is not a just man on earth that does good and does not sin.”
****Psalm 40:6-8
––Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have pierced;
Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required.
Then I said, “Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me.
I delight to do Your will, O my G-d;
Your Law is within my heart.”
****Psalm 32:1-2
–– “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.”
****Habakkuk 2:4
––“Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him;
But the righteous will live by his faith [Emunah].”
Kavi, consider this:
Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity.
We do have the ability to merit righteousness through Torah. Being “sinless” clearly isn’t a prerequisite for righteousness necessarily, as Proverbs 24:16 makes abundantly clear…
And so does Deuteronomy 6:25…
Deut 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.
So being righteous clearly has nothing to do with the “belief in jesus as your lord and savior” or the idea of jesus dying and his blood supposedly atoning for the sins of the word…
Rather, we merit righteousness through our following of Torah!
YI,
Well, let’s take a bit closer look at the Proverb you mentioned,
****Proverbs 24:15-16
––”Do not lurk like a thief near the house of the righteous,
do not plunder their dwelling place;
for though the righteous fall seven times, they rise again,
but the wicked stumble when calamity strikes.”
Since we do not find a direct link between the Law [Deuteronomy 6:25] and this Proverb, we would then need to consider how this person had been already proclaimed righteous.
________________________________________
Mankind cannot claim righteousness under the Law because mankind cannot keep it– who of us can honestly say they keep all 613 Mitzvot? [PS> I will admit that I cannot :( ]
Rather, to find G-d’s righteousness, we look to Abraham (and a second witness from the book of Habakkuk):
****Genesis 15:6
––”And he believed [Emunah] in HaShem, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”
****Habakkuk 2:4
––“Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him;
But the righteous will live by his faith [Emunah].”
At the time G-d proclaimed him righteous due to his Emunah, Abraham was still named “Abram”, was not circumcised, had no son through Sarai, had no Torah, or Nevi’im, or Ketuvim–– nevertheless, G-d imputed righteousness upon Abram because he believed in G-d’s Word.
Once G-d imputes righteousness to a man or woman through the “obedience” of Emunah in Him, then they may then freely believe that the mercy of G-d will allow them to rise again–– even after being stricken.
The poor psalmist got all his theology wrong :(
Give me understanding, and I will observe thy law; and I will keep it with [my] whole heart. Psalm 119:34…
Is there any of you (both sides) who want to change his mind? So what’s the point to argue when none want to change their mind? It becomes useless….
Remi, sometimes what matters is when others, that is folks who are reading these comments, decide for themselves who is making more sense.
You are right Gene, I did not think about that.
How can we stay in God’s path?
By living according to your D’var.
again the that poor psalmist got it wrong… it’s by believing in Jesus :)
Kavi, concerning Abraham, I would like you to consider this:
Fact: Abraham did not believe in jesus as his “lord in savior” in order to be counted as righteous.
So why are you comparing your faith in jesus to Abraham’s faith?
Fact: Your jesus and his blood are not mentioned as a remedy for sin in the Tanach.
Thus, your understanding of salvation and atonement of sin is completely foreign to G-d’s word.
Shalom
Remi, it may appear as though the conversation I am having with Kavi is “fruitless” at first glance. However, you and I both know that Kavi has been forced into a corner:
Kavi has two choices. He (or she?) can either admit that Hebrews 9:22 is a false statement and acknowledge that the foundation of jesus’s supposed “essential ultimate blood atonement” was a fabricated lie…
Or Kavi can continue to make strawman arguments, such as the “Abraham’s faith” argument that is constantly used by christians in order to attempt to get out of a theological blunder that the NT authors made.
That that is precisely what Kavi is doing right now…
So what if Abraham’s faith made him righteous! What in the world does that have to do with the conversation about whether or not blood atonement is needed for atonement in all circumstances, as Hebrews 9:22 brazenly and falsely claims?
The answer is nothing!
Abraham didn’t pray to jesus or acknowledge jesus as his “lord and savior.” Yet Kavi would have us believe that “jesus is the only way to righteousness.” But Abraham’s faith had nothing to do with belief in jesus’s supposed “death and resurrection” or any of the other absurdities that are perpetuated by christians concerning their jesus.
If Abraham didn’t need “jesus blood” in order to be counted as righteous, the nor do we!
Kavi’s strawman argument actually works against his (or her) beliefs about jesus, since Abraham didn’t need “jesus blood” in order to be counted as righteous.
So in essence, Kavi has already lost the argument by tacitly admitting this fact…
Shalom
Kavi, you also made this statement:
“Mankind cannot claim righteousness under the Law because mankind cannot keep it”
Let’s see what G-d has to say on this!
Deut 30:10. when you obey the Lord, your God, to observe His commandments and His statutes written in this Torah scroll, [and] when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deut 30:11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
Deut 30:12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?”
Deut 30:13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?”
Deut 30:14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, **SO THAT YOU CAN FULFILL IT.**
Hashem claims that we can fulfill Torah! Contrast this with paul’s false message that no matter how hard we try, we will never be able to fulfill what Hashem expects of us. This is contradictory to Deut 30:10-14. G-d says we CAN fulfill what He expects of us. Your paul claims we need jesus. Who are you going to believe? Hashem or paul?
Kick paul to the curb. Torah is truth! I pray that you will come back to the one true G-d of Israel and acknowledge paul and jesus as the false prophets they are!
Shalom
Chag Pesach Sameach!
By addressing the Book of Hebrews, we get back to the original question—“If the Hebrew Bible is true, why not the New Covenant?” and vice versa.
Let’s take Hebrew 9:21-22 in context and I will paraphrase verses 1-20 for the sake of brevity and leave verses 21-22 by themselves:
****“The first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. A tent was prepared, and the first section was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place.
The priests would go regularly into the first section and perform their ritual duties that dealt with food, drink, various washings, and regulations.
But the Most Holy Place could only be entered by the high priest once a year—and not without taking blood to offer for himself and the sins of the people.
Now, after Moses declared every commandment of the law to the people, he took the blood of calves and goats and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”
Moses also sprinkled with blood the tent and all the vessels used in worship and, according to the law, almost everything is purified with blood— indeed, apart from the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
________________________________________________
So, if I can briefly summarize:
[a] Hebrews 9:21-22 reference to “almost”
We find all kinds of sacrifices outside the tabernacle that included blood as well as excluded blood.
[b] Hebrews 9:21-22 reference to “apart from”
We find the mandatory shedding of blood when:
—the Covenant is sealed.
—the High Priest enters the Most Holy Place on the Most Holy Day of Atonement;
I hope this information helps clarify.
Shalom!
Kavi, when G-d made His covenant with Noah that there would never be a world wide flood of destruction, there was not a “mandatory shedding of blood,” so your assertion is false…Blood isn’t “mandatory” for all covenants.
Moreover, if Hebrews 9:22 only refers to “almost” all things, then your jesus died in vain. I already showed you that there are other means of atonement for sin outside of blood sacrifice, including prayer and even money in certain contexts! I showed you that the prophet Daniel stood righteous during the Babylonian exile without any sort of bloodshed made on his behalf. He remained righteous through his repentance and observance of Torah and prayer.
Fact: Your jesus wasn’t a “high priest.” Your jesus’s death was not on the altar and it had nothing to do with Yom Kippur.
So why you brought that up is beyond me…
Shalom
Shalom Aleichem,
Yehuda Yisrael . . . Thank you for engaging this thread!
I am sorry if my brief comments were unclear—here’s a more direct summary:
[a] Noahic Covenant— Hebrews 9:1-22 does not reference this covenant.
[b] Mosiac Covenant— Hebrews 9:1-22 refers to:
—“blood was not required” for certain sacrifices outside the tabernacle;
—“blood was mandatory” to seal the Mosaic Covenant;
—“blood was mandatory” for the High Priest to enter the Most Holy Place on the Most Holy Day of Atonement;
___________________________________________
[c] So, I think we are in agreement!! Hebrews says that,
** blood is not required for every sacrifice () outside the tabernacle yet,
** blood is required to () enter the Most Holy Place and () to seal the Mosaic Covenant.
[d] Now that we have agreement, we can expound a bit more on the book of Hebrews:
****Yeshua HaMashiach is the eternal Most High Priest “after the order of Malkitzedek” who can enter the Most Holy Place [Psalm 110]
****Yeshua HaMashiach sealed the New Covenant with His own blood [Exodus 24, Deuteronomy 18, Jeremiah 31, and Ezekiel 11, 18, 36]
Shalom
Kavi,
Concerning Psalms 110 and “the Melchizedek priesthood,” we know that the only other place in the Tanach where Melchizedek is mentioned is in Genesis 14…Melchizedek is mentioned as being the King of Salem. (Jerusalem)
I am confused why you come to the conclusion that the Melchizedek priesthood relates exclusively to jesus…I am not convinced that it refers to jesus at all…But I have no problem with it having a Messianic connotation to it as well.
I don’t see anything in Psalms 110 that relates in any way to jesus…Especially Psalms 110:5, which explicitly states this:
Psalms 110:5. The Lord, on your right hand, **has crushed kings** on the day of His wrath.
Now Kavi, during jesus’s lifetime, did jesus “crush kings”? Was he successful in defeating his enemies? Were his enemies “made a footstool at his feet”? (Psalms 110:1) Clearly not! Your jesus was killed and failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies outlined in the Tanach. As it stands, jesus has fulfilled none of Psalms 110 in any tangible sense. You can argue that he will fulfill it in his supposed “second coming,” but to claim that jesus has fulfilled any of this Psalm would be completely baseless as it stands…
Another oddity about your understanding about this “Melchizedek priesthood” is that you believe that jesus’s bloodshed “atoned for the sins of the world.” Where in the Tanach does it state that the Melchizedek priesthood achieves atonement via the blood sacrifice? The only priesthood that was given this divine instruction that I know of was the Levitical priesthood…If you could find a passage in the Tanach which states that the “Melchizedek priesthood” achieves atonement via “blood sacrifice,” then maybe your position would make a little more sense. But as it stands, you appear to be baselessly asserting that this Melchizedek priesthood has “superior atoning power” in comparison to the Levitical priesthood, when there is nothing in the Tanach that indicates that the Melchizedek priesthood deals with blood atonement at all!
And I already showed you that jesus’s death has nothing to do with the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:30-34…But apparently, you don’t want to listen to reason…Oh well…
I hope you will consider these concerns.
Shalom