Daily Minyan

I notice this is April 1st Gene. This is your joke of the year, right? Nice try.

Stephanie Wetzel

April’s fool, right?

Jim D.

To readers who aren’t already familiar with the blog author’s views: Lest you actually take this post seriously, I can tell you that it is either entirely tongue in cheek, or Gene’s account has been compromised.

Troy

Has something to do with today’s date I’m sure.

Sarah

You almost had me at the first sentence, then I remembered the date!

Julian

I realize that Gene meant his post as an April Fool’s joke, and I think it is a very good one. However, the title of it is ambiguous, and allows for Jesus to have his own April Fools joke on Gene. In order to explain, allow me to quote from Mark Kinzer’s book, Searching her Own Mystery; Nostra Aetate, the Jewish People, and the Identity of the Church:

“Mark and Matthew recount that Jesus took the cup, gave thanks (eucharisteo) for it, passed it to his disciples, and said, ‘This is my blood of the covenant.’ Jesus thereby relates this cup – and the events of the following day to which it points – to the sacrificial blood that ratified the Sinai covenant. In that ratification ceremony Moses built an altar at the foot of Mount Sinai, and set up twelve pillars in close proximity to the altar to represent the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod 24:4). He then had animals sacrificed, and poured half of their blood on the altar (which represented God). After reading aloud the book of the covenant, he dashed the other half of the blood on the people (Exocudus 24:5-8). As he did this he said, ‘See the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod 24:8). After this, Moses, Aaron, two of Aaron’s sons, and seventy of Israel’s elders ascend the mountain, behold the God of Israel, and eat and drink in God’s presence (Exod 24:9-11).

“What is the point of Jesus’ allusion to the ratification of the Sinai covenant? The traditional view regards the allusion as typological in character. Just as Moses placed sacrificial blood on the people of Israel to seal the Sinai covenant, so Jesus will place his own blood on his disciples to seal the ‘new’ covenant. This typological reading discerns a common pattern in the two actions, but also distances them from each other. It implies the existence of two separate covenants and two separate covenant people, with the former only foreshadowing the latter. However, the text itself does not require such an interpretation. More likely, Jesus here points to his coming death as the true sacrifice – represented proleptically by the offerings of Exodus 24 – which retroactively seals and thus ultimately sustains the Sinai covenant itself. According to this interpretation, Jesus envisions only one covenant and only one covenant people – the people of Israel” (p. 113.)

If Dr. Kinzer is correct – and I think he is – then Jesus was claiming that his blood was the blood of the covenant that sealed the people of Israel to G-d. And if Jesus’ claim was correct, then he is indeed the one who has ensured the survival of the Jewish people. So yes, whether or not Gene and other Jewish people choose to believe in him, if Jesus’ claim is true, then he is indeed (and has always been) the Jewish people’s best chance of survival. If so, then one day, Jesus will enjoy his April Fool’s joke on Gene, and then give him a big hug, just as he does in the picture Gene provided.

Jim D.

Julian, there are fatal flaws to Kinzer’s analysis.

First a few words regarding the underlying principles of the various uses of blood by the ancient Israelites. Blood was used: as a marker the night of the exodus, to seal deals, along with burnt offerings, along with offerings of well-being, and for purification/expiation “sin” offerings.

Blood of a covenant was used to seal a deal. It was used symbolically — in essence, a vivid, visual warning that the penalty for breaking the subject covenant would be death.

The blood that was applied to the altar, which was not at all symbolic of G-d, was splashed on its sides just as was required of all animals’ blood at the altar in the future (until an exception was made later), because the life is in the blood, and since G-d gave life to all the living, man must return that life to G-d when he takes it from animals.

The text is clear as to the use of the blood: Ex 24:5 states the blood was from sacrificed animals which were burnt and peace offerings. These were not “sin” offerings. Ex. 24:8 makes it clear that Moses used the blood to seal the covenant between G-d and the people.

Now, if you and Kinzer want to make a direct parallel between Jesus’s blood and the covenant, and if Jesus’ followers were to worship him because his blood was used to seal a new covenant, then it can only mean that the people at Sinai would have been expected to worship the bulls from whom the blood of the first covenant came. Obviously that cannot be. You cannot look back to Torah to apply ritualistic principles to a later use and change the very principles in the process.

Secondly, Jesus was a Torah abiding Jew. He adhered to Jewish law, custom and ritual. Deeply ingrained in Jewish law, as created by G-d, is the strict prohibition against man consuming blood. It was anathema to all Jews to even allude to consuming blood. The real Jesus would NEVER have uttered such a thing. But consuming blood was not uncommon in the Roman world at the time the Gospels were written.

These words attributed to Jesus were never actually uttered by the real person. They were written later by the anonymous authors of the books entitled Mark and Matthew by Greek writers (and there is plenty of critical proof of this). These words were put in Jesus’ mouth, and are fictional.

Julian

Hi Jim,

First, as you say “that Moses used the blood to seal the covenant between G-d and the people.” Half of the blood was sprinkled on the people. The other half was poured on the altar, which in this case was the representative for G-d. At first you say that the altar does not represent G-d, then you say that the life of the animal was returned to G-d by splashing it on the altar. Make up your mind.

Second, Jesus’ followers were to worship him because he was the Word of G-d, the full expression of who G-d is, who has existed throughout all eternity…not because his blood was used to seal the covenant.

Third, people were commanded not to drink blood, because the life of the animal was in the blood, and G-d does not want us to participate in the life of animals. Jesus did not tell us to drink his blood, but to drink the wine, which is symbolic of his blood. It symbolizes taking into us the life of the Word of G-d. I’ll let you and others debate whether Jesus really said it.

Jim D.

Julian,

The altar was “before G-d” in all cases, not G-d Himself or symbolic of G-d. No more than the incense altar, the table for the Bread of Presence or the lampstand were representative of G-d. The altar was before G-d at the foot of Mt. Sinai, just as the altar of the tabernacle was before the place where G-d made His presence, within the Holy of Holies.

Secondly, the so-called “New Covenant” is either the one referred to in Jeremiah, or refers to the NT itself. Since the NT wasn’t written when Jesus was alive, it can’t be that. And the new covenant referred to in Jeremiah simply means that all of G-d’s commandments will be in His peoples’ hearts, and they will not need to study them from books or from teachers. But the commandments themselves remain. The commandments of Torah, not new ones, and it does not mean the “old” ones were no longer in force.

Thirdly, no Jew would even drink wine symbolically of blood. That would have been mocking G-d Himself and His commandments.

And on a new subject, the actual blood of Jesus, nor any blood, could have been or was able to cleanse sin from persons. If you go back and read how blood was actually used, you will see clearly — no, maybe you won’t — that blood from “sin” offerings was always, with only two specific exceptions, used to cleanse sin contamination from objects in the tabernacle (the altar, ark covering, etc.), and later in the Temple. It was not dashed or sprinkled on people to cleanse them. In fact, on the Day of Atonement, it was the scapegoat that was released in the wilderness, alive, that removed the last traces of “all of the people’s sin”. Not blood.

The Christian concept and use of blood is misinformed and untrue. The ritualistic laws governing the sacrificial system were specific and complex. They could not be changed. And neither can the NT change them for its’ convenience.

Sorry my friend, believe what you like, but the NT is almost entirely fictional, as is its’ portrayal of Jesus.

Julian

Hi Jim,

First, as you originally pointed out the blood of the covenant was used to seal a covenant. If half was sprinkled on the people of Israel, the other half was poured on the altar, which represented…what?

Second, I’m not sure why you are bringing up the New Covenant. In Mark and Matthew Jesus refers to the blood of the covenant, not the blood of the new covenant. But I agree with your interpretation.

Third, drinking wine which symbolized the life of the Word of G-d would not be mocking G-d or His commandments.

Fourth, since the blood of the covenant was the sealing of a covenant between G-d and His people Israel, Jesus is claiming that his blood was indeed the blood that sealed that covenant. I agree with your interpretation of the use of blood to cleanse the contamination of sin from objects in the tabernacle. And that it was the scapegoat that was released into the wilderness – to the demon Azazel – that removed the sin from the people. The New Testament says that we are now the Temple of G-d, which means that the blood of Jesus removes sin from our lives. And it was the handing over of Jesus by the high priest to the Roman authorities, who represented Azazel, that removed sin from the people of Israel, and all Gentiles who believe in him.

” if Jesus’ claim is true, then he is indeed (and has always been) the Jewish people’s best chance of survival.”

And if Mohamed’s claim is true…., and if Joseph Smith’s claim is true, ….if Buddha’s claim is true, if L. Ron Hubbard’s claim is true…. I think you get my point, Julian. The bottom line is, all of these other claims made by these other religions, including claims made by Christianity about its god Jesus (or, more likely, by his later followers on his behalf) directly conflict with what Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible teaches.

Christians claim to love the Bible, but they are in fact ignorant about the Hebrew Bible and are linguistically and educationally challenged to fully comprehend it contents. Torah doesn’t teach us to look for a god-man whose blood would free us from sins. In fact, the Bible over and over warns us to look us out for such false prophets who would introduce new, false gods that our Jewish forefathers knew not. And our forefathers never heard of Jesus, a man-god. Neither Moses nor the rest of the Jews with him or after him ever met the so called “second person of the Trinity” and they were never commanded by the True G-d, who already made it clear in no uncertain terms that there was nobody next to Him or with Him, to look for such a person.

To worship a man, no matter what claims made on his behalf, is idolatry to a Jew. If tomorrow all Jews decided to worship Jesus, it would be a veritable death sentence for the whole of Jewish people. Thankfully, the G-d of Israel would never allow such a thing to come to pass and today, only a fraction of intermarried, assimilated and Jewishly-illiterate Jews fall for the claims made by Christianity.

So, if Jesus does return, in spite of already failing to return in the lifetime of his original followers as he falsely prophesied, the joke would indeed be on the Jewish people. However, it’s extremely doubtful that this will be the case, since the Hebrew prophets seem to predict the complete opposite – it’s the nations, and not the Jews, who will realize their error about making their own gods (including making a man Jesus into a god) and will acknowledge their being wrong about the True G-d:

To you (Hashem) shall the nations come from the ends of the earth and say: “Our fathers have inherited nothing but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit. Do people make their own gods? Yes, but they are not gods!” (Jeremiah 16:19-20)

And the Jews? They will be finally vindicated in the sight of all nations:

Thus saith the L-rd of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you. (Zechariah 8:23)

Jim D.

Out of the mouths of babes..

Julian

Gene, I certainly agree with you that the Jews will be vindicated as having been the people of G-d all along. However, I believe that a parallel vindication of Jesus among his own Jewish people will also happen. For just as most Gentiles do not believe that Jews are God’s people, so most Jews do not believe that Jesus is their Messiah. And if Jesus is indeed the source of the original blood of the covenant that bound the people of Israel to G-d, this would stand to reason. For what happened to him was to be paralleled by the people who were sprinkled by his blood, and so were inextricably bound to his life. Just as they failed to recognize him, so the nations have failed to recognize them. But just as the people of Israel will be vindicated in front of the nations, so will he in front of his own people.

The Real Messianic

Hi Julian, the Torah requires the Jewish people to reject Yeshua… First, as per the New Testament, “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood”

As per the Law (Torah), sacrifices must be made in a certain manner to be acceptable to G-d. For example, Leviticus 17:4 says “instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD–that person shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; they have shed blood and must be cut off from their people.”

As per the New Testament, Jesus suffered outside the camp (Hebrews 13:2). As per Lev 17:4 anybody that offers a sacrifice outside the camp shall be put to death, thus it was not a valid sacrifice.

Secondly and more importantly, the Children of Israel were mandate not to worship other gods. As per Philippians 2:10, we should worship Jesus. But the Torah warns against worshipping other gods than YVHV (The LORD)

Deuteronomy 32:17 says:

They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God– gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your ancestors did not fear.

Deuteronomy 13:16 says:

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known,

In the time of Jesus nobody worshipped him as god. For example, Peter could have asked his father if they worshipped Jesus and they would have said no. The penalty for worshipping Jesus then should have been death.

Also, the Children of Israel were warned not to worship anything they have not seen at Mount Horeb (Sinai).

Deuteronomy 4:

You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.

You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman,… And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

The word Host (tsaba’) is the same word use when G-d describes himself as the LORD of Host. It includes any physical and created being. Jesus, being a created man was not supposed to be worshipped as a god. Furthermore, the LORD explicitly said and that they did not see any form. Jesus has a form and so has a golden calf. Could G-d decided to embodied a golden calf? Could he have decided to embodied a man? The answer is yes and no. Yes because G-d could have done anything he wants, but NO because he said He would never do that! And G-d is not a man that he should lie. God is not a man and God is not a liar.

With all those warnings that were given to them, the Jewish people were right not to accept Jesus as their messiah nor accepting him as a god (tri-une god) or anything else.

Finally, if Jesus was anything lower than G-d, it would break the first commandment to worship him as the New Testament writer ask you to do: “You shall have no other gods before my face”

Julian

Hi TRM,

You’re not implying that if Jesus had been sacrificed in accordance with the temple regulations that the sacrifice would have been acceptable, are you?

The Real Messianic

No, I am saying that you are hoping in a “sacrifice” that cannot save…and a messiah that is false and has no prophecies to back him up… a god that is not G-d, and cannot save.

Julian

Okay, so all that stuff about Jesus not being sacrificed according to regulations isn’t really relevant, is it?

The Real Messianic

It is extremely relevant… It shows that you trust in a sacrifice that is not a sacrifice!

Julian

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Jesus was really the Messiah, and that he was supposed to offer his life as sacrifice. How exactly does he get the priests to sacrifice a human on the altar of the Temple?

“For the sake of argument, let’s say that Jesus was really the Messiah, and that he was supposed to offer his life as sacrifice. How exactly does he get the priests to sacrifice a human on the altar of the Temple?”

Julian, you can’t make this kind of argument. It’s like asking, let’s suppose that there’s a jailed robber who thinks that it is his destiny to rob somebody tomorrow (after all, this is what he does for a living). How exactly is he to do that if he happens to be locked up and the police would never let him out to do his deed. How does the robber make the police do his bidding and let him out to rob people?

Both the question and the answer are absurd. This stuff is not meant to happen and there’s no need to rack our brains trying to figure out how to make the impossible and unnecessary both possible and necessary .

Julian

You kinda’ make my point, Gene. If Jesus was supposed to be a sacrificed Messiah, then the sacrifice would need to be outside of the Temple system, since human sacrifices were forbidden in it.

Isaiah 53 is about somebody (not an animal) suffering a violent death and making their soul an asham, and bearing the sins of many. Now whether it is about Israel, the righteous remnant of Israel, or the Messiah (I think it is all three), it is about a sacrifice that happens outside the Temple system.

“If Jesus was supposed to be a sacrificed Messiah, then the sacrifice would need to be outside of the Temple system, since human sacrifices were forbidden in it. ”

The problem with this reasoning is that human sacrifices are forbidden by Torah, period, no matter where they take place. G-d detests sacrificing of innocent people. And if G-d had a son (actually G-d does, but it’s not Jesus, but Israel), He would not require the death of an innocent human being to appease Himself, because he detests such an act.

“There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering” (Deuteronomy 18:10)

“You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)

“They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” (Jeremiah 32:35)

To sacrifice one’s children is an abomination to G-d. To claim that G-d would then turn around and sacrifice his own child (which with Jesus, according to he NT, would actually be G-d Himself, and not merely G-d’s child, if one thinks about it for more than a second) goes against everything G-d already warned us about in His Word.

The Real Messianic

“It’s like asking, let’s suppose that there’s a jailed robber who thinks that it is his destiny to rob somebody tomorrow”

Easy peasy! He can offer himself has a sacrifice to the world, raise himself on the third day, (and that’s tomorrow because it can only be part of the day) and voila, robe his neighbour after going out of his tomb!

Isaiah 53

Lord has made bare His holy arm
In the eyes of all the nations;
(Not the Jewish People, the nations are christian and muslim right now!)

And all the ends of the earth shall see
The salvation of our God.
(Toward the Jewish People)

11 Depart! Depart! Go out from there,
Touch no unclean thing;
(Depart from your exile and go back to Israel)

Go out from the midst of her,
Be clean,
You who bear the vessels of the Lord.
(ISRAEL, the Levites)

12 For you shall not go out with haste,
Nor go by flight;
For the Lord will go before you,
(God will bring you back to your land)

And the God of Israel will be your rear guard.

13 Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently;
He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.
(Never happened with Jesus)

14 Just as many were astonished at you,
So His visage was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men;

15 So shall He sprinkle many nations.
Kings shall shut their mouths at Him;
(Of the nations who will see the arm of the L-rd, AKA, Christian and Muslim nations)

For what had not been told them they shall see,
(That Jesus was nothing and Israel was right all the time)
And what they had not heard they shall consider.
(Maybe one day TW)

1Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?
(The nations who saw the arm of the L-rd will say that)

2And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him?
(Crowds were following Jesus man! that does not fit at all!, Jews were despised sins even before your antisemetic Non Testament)
3Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account.
(Of course that fits Jesus, and he was ill all his life! Show me the verse!)

4Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.
(G-d chastised Israel, read Isaiah 24, etc. And again, won’t you say that the 2 temple was destroyed because we rejected your Yeshua?yet we, gentiles, accounted him, the Jews, as plagued )

5But he was pained because of our transgressions
(Even if G-d used the nations to chastise Israel, they went too much and Israel paid the double for all their sins! ISAIAH 40:2)

, crushed because of our iniquities
(Gentiles persecuting the jews and thinking it was God’s punishment.)

; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
(because of the chastisement, Israel turned to the L-rd and inquired for peace… The messiah will bring peace in the whole world)

We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.
(Israel’s prayer)

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth;
(Jesus opened his mouth on his trial)

like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth.

8From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken
, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.
(righteous Israel fell like the rest because of the sins of the wicked:
You removed him who rejoiced and worked righteousness, those who mentioned You in Your ways; behold, when You became wroth for we had sinned; through them, of old, we would be saved. ISAIAH 64:4)

9And he gave his grave to the wicked
(Jesus was with the rich)

, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death
(jesus was with the wicked)

, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
(Jesus deceived people to worship a false god)

10And the Lord wished to crush him
(Jeremiah 30:11 Jeremiah 13:9)

, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution,
(Isaiah 59:20)

he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.
(Israel did retun to the land, have literal children)

11From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My reighteous servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear.
(the iniquity of the nations, as a priest too all the nations)

12Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public
(never happened to Jesus, he only showed himself to the 12 (including Judas I guess))

, and with the strong he shall share plunder
(On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. And Israel will get the plunders) (Zechariah 12:3)

, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted; and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.

“Sing, O barren,
You who have not borne!
Break forth into singing, and cry aloud,
You who have not labored with child!
For more are the children of the desolate (ISRAEL)
Than the children of the married woman (GENTILES),” says the Lord.

For you shall expand to the right and to the left,
And your descendants (SEED OF ISAIAH 53:11) will inherit the nations, (who HE plunder)
And make the desolate cities inhabited.

“Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed;
Neither be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame;
For you will forget the shame of your youth, (When G-d wrath was on them… see ISaiah 53:10)

“For a mere moment I have forsaken you,
But with great mercies I will gather you.

This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, (Plural.. same servant as Isaiah 52)
And their righteousness is from Me,” (see Isaiah 53:11 Righteous servant, is Israel who received righteousness from the L-rd)

Julian

Gene, yes, G-d forbids us to make human sacrifices, yet Isaiah talks about some kind of human sacrifice that was made. How to reconcile the two? You say that G-d would not sacrifice his own Son. But that is because you have the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory in mind. According to that theory, G-d needed to punish somebody for our sins, so he punished his Son, instead of us. I agree with you that PSA is an abominable theory. However, I do not see why we need to interpret either the Temple sacrifices nor the New Testament’s view of Jesus’ death through the lens of PSA. I have talked to someone who has studied the history of atonement theory quite a bit. According to him, PSA was actually invented by John Calvin. If so, it’s a rather recent invention and there is no need to understand the New Testament in terms of it. But I’ve discussed this before on your blog. Apparently you ignored everything I had to say about it. I don’t expect you to pay attention to me this time, either. You’ll be back making fun of PSA soon enough, thinking that this is the only way to understand New Testament teaching on the matter. No sense in my trying to stop you.

The Real Messianic

Ezekiel 18:4:
“Look, all lives belong to me ” both the parent”s life and the child”s life are equally mine ” so it is the person who sins, himself, who must die.” Not JESUS!

Proverbs 17:15:
“He who justifies the wicked (YOU) and he who condemns the righteous (YESHUA as per you) are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (if you kiss the son and accept him as your lord and savior?… Yeah right! If ye be willing and OBEDIENT!

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? Ezekiel 18:21.

Why do you teach what is nowhere found in the Tanakh Julian? If you want to hang on Isaiah 53, you better have more than one verse to back your worship of Yeshua as a god… I won’t say more, as I see that this subject was previously answered on this post comment section. And furthermore, an Asham was not a willing sin sacrifice. There is no need to trust Yeshua if he only made atonement for unintentional sin (Asham)…

Asham is not always an animal sacrifice. Look at Number 5:7-8
‘then he shall confess the sin which he has committed. He shall make restitution for his Asham in full, plus one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged.‘But if the man has no relative to whom restitution may be made for the Asham, the restitution for the Asham must go to the LORD for the priest, in addition to the ram of the atonement with which atonement is made for him

If you believe in Jesus, you believe in Replacement Theology

“But that is because you have the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory in mind.”

I don’t have any particular theory in mind, Julian. I approach things from the Jewish point of view, which is perfectly comfortable with availability of full forgiveness from sins and restoration of relationship with G-d sans any sacrifice. Jesus’ death accomplished nothing in that regard nor was there any need for his non-sacrificial death, a.k.a. execution at the hands of Roman occupiers. For the last two thousand years Christianity has been trying to wedge Jesus’ failure as messiah into the Biblical redemption process, somehow, someway. This is the reason why there are so many differing Christian theories about how Jesus is suppose to work and what was his purpose; the PSA stuff you brought up is just one of those theories.

Jim D.

Julian,

TRM presented you with a significant amount of scripture that the NT is completely at odds with. I suppose it is irrefutable, which is why you didn’t refute it. Just kidding. I know you will find creative ways to rationalize your way around all of it. As you said to Gene, no sense in trying to stop you.

But be aware that what you and most Christian apologists have been doing is to mistranslate, misinterpret, misapply, misappropriate and simply miss the clear meanings in Torah. It is a strained, convoluted and delusional rationalization that really never works. All the pieces would fit, and the truth would become crystal clear, to you however, if you were willing to step back from your years of indoctrination and began to seriously consider the possibility that the NT is largely a work of fiction. The Truth is as simple as that, and the truth shall set you free.

The Real Messianic

“if you were willing to step back from your years of indoctrination and began to seriously consider the possibility that the NT is largely a work of fiction.”

So true Jim… but that would be a big step to take. Why can’t you, Julian, only look at the Bible verse in context and see if it fits Yeshua or not, with an open eye. That would be the first step to know if Yeshua is the messiah or not. Can you be honest? Look at both side of the coin, but don’t pray to Yeshua to show that he is really in that prophecy. Just check for yourself and see, one by one, why it fits Yeshua and why it does not. As I said previously, we would all gain by being honest and check things in context. I am sure of what I believe, but that’s why I like those websites. It helps me understand what the Author really meant. In the end, I am convince that Yeshua is not the messiah, because the New Testament took so many of the “prophecies” out of context. I was looking at Zecheriah 13:7 as an example. Who is that Shepherded? Does it fits Yeshua? Who are the Shepherds in other passages? Kings of Israel, but in Zec 13, there is simply no kings over Israel… So what? I read the whole chapter. I discovered that G-d will judge the false prophets and then he will strike that shepherd and the little ones. Who are those little ones? If I compare with the other passages, I arrived at the conclusion that it must be a ruler. Yeshua, who never was a ruler does not fit. Then which rule is the most appropriate question after. I come to the conclusion that it must be the gentile ruler who ruled over Israel during exile. Can I be wrong? Yes, but it must be a real ruler. I also compared with other bible verses that confirm what I see:

Zechariah 11:15-17 – (15) And the Lord said to me, “Take for yourself yet another thing,
the instrument of a foolish shepherd. (16) For, behold! I am setting up a shepherd in
the land, he will not remember [to count] those who are missing, nor will he seek the
young ones, nor heal the broken one; nor will he feed the one which stands still, but he
will eat the meat of the healthy ones, and break their hoofs into pieces. (17) Woe to My
worthless shepherd who abandons the flock; may a sword strike his arm and his right
eye; his arm shall surely wither, and his right eye will go completely blind.

Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding. Jer 3:15

.”Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. Jer 23:1

I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the LORD. Jer 23

The flock (sheep) is always Israel and the shepherd are always rulers. See also Zec 11 talks about a foolish shepherd, that does not fit Yeshua, it needs to be consistent. And remember Isaiah 53, the lamb… Israel is compared to sheep, that would make sense also that Isaiah 53 talks about Israel for that reason.

Hope this helps. You may want to check further with us and compare one by one if it fits Yeshua or not… We are there to help, and if you holds to truth, then you will help us :)

Julian

On the contrary, Gene, your repeated criticisms of Christians interpretations of the meaning of Jesus’ always boil down to a criticism of PSA. Once we reject PSA and examine the purpose of sacrifices we can understand why G-d would prohibit us from sacrificing other human beings, but would be willing to sacrifice his Son.

April 7, 2016

“your repeated criticisms of Christians interpretations of the meaning of Jesus’ always boil down to a criticism of PSA.”

Julian… just because YOU have a problem with PSA, don’t project it on this blog. There are MANY theories in Christianity about the supposed purpose of Jesus’ death, among them:

1. Ransom/Christus Victor theory
2. Moral influence theory
3. Satisfaction theory
4. Penal substitution theory
5. Recapitulation theory
6. The “shared atonement” theory
7. The scapegoat theory

And that’s probably not even all the “theories” out there. Which one is your favorite? Is it none of the above and you have your own theory? The point is – Christianity itself doesn’t really have a clue of how and where Jesus fits in. He is an artificial, unbiblical entity. And that’s why Christians have had to come up with so many conflicting reasons and explanations to somehow squeeze him into the Biblical process of redemption.

April 7, 2016

I’ve read several verses in the Torah that show that blood is not needed for atonement. Not only is the מנחה offering not an animal sacrifice that atones, but as with certain animal sacrifices, the atonement takes effect when the Kohanim would eat it. Meaning it is essentially charity that atones.

Sacrifices are charity to the Kohanim, and the half-shekel given also atoned, which it states plainly in the Torah. The reason sacrifices and charity are so closely linked in the atonement process is because they both require the inconvenience of giving up money or something of monetary value, giving up some of one’s livelihood. This atones for sin.

Now what of the fact that prayer, repentance, and remorse also atone and actually that one must have had to repent before bringing a sacrifice for it to be acceptable for atonement? This is explained in Mishne Torah, hil. Teshuva (laws of repentance), in detail. It is entirely based on Tanakh, as well (for those who think the oral Torah is some kind of invention, God forbid, or doesn’t have everything to do with the written Torah).

All Christianity’s belief in Jesus’ death does is make them liable for transgressing the Torah. Whether they’re non-Jews and are held by the standard of the universal 7 mitzvot, or if they’re Jews and they’re held by more of a strict standard – believing in the human sacrifice of Jesus actually adds to a person sins, in a very serious way, and if the person worships Jesus as well, this is considered as breaking the whole Torah entirely, since that is how heavy the sin of idolatry is.

Jim D.

April 7, 2016

Hi Aaron,

I completely agree with your last paragraph. But I’m hesitating a bit on the charity interpretation. Can you cite the verses you’re looking at?

Mr. Cohen

The Jewish Bible [Tanach] condemns marriage between Jews and non-Jews 12 times:

{1} Exodus 34 {2} Numbers 25 {3} Deuteronomy 7 {4} Proverbs 2 {5} Proverbs 5
{6} Proverbs 6 {7} Proverbs 7 {8} Ezra 9 {9} Nehemiah 10 {10} Nehemiah 13
{11} Hosea 5 {12} Malachi 2.

The great Jewish scholar and leader Ezra literally pulled his hair out when he learned that Jews were intermarrying with non-Jews (Bible, Book of Ezra, chapter 9), even though there were only 400 intermarriages out of a population of 4 million Jews – less than a 1% intermarriage rate.

The great Biblical Jewish leader NEHEMIAH beat up Jews who intermarried with non-Jews, and also tore their hair out (Bible, Book of Nehemiah, chapter 13, verse 25). NEHEMIAH was never criticized for this by any prophet, even though prophecy was still active in his time.

The Biblical Prophet MALACHI cursed Jewish men who took non-Jewish girlfriends (Bible, Book of Malachi, chapter 2).
Malachi was chronologically the last prophet of the OT (Only Testament).

Jim D.

I don’t entirely disagree with you, Mr. Cohen, but it is easy to cast the wide net of absolutes. I think a more nuanced understanding is also appropriate.

The prohibition against intermarriage does not seem to be generalized. It was focused on the idolatrous nations that occupied the future land of Israel and thus polluted the land, which was to remain sacred. There is no specific prohibition outside of the land of Israel, or other than those inhabitants.

Ex 34:11-18 — The commandment was specifically aimed at the five nations of idolaters in the future land of Israel.

Num 2:25, it was the daughters of Moab who enticed some of Israel to worship Baal Peor.

Ez 10:2 identifies the forbidden women as from “the peoples of the land”.

Neh 10:31 states, “and that we would not give our daughters unto the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons;”.

Neh 13:23-24: “In those days also saw I the Jews that had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab; and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’language, but according to the language of each people.

All of these verses are consistent, and are specific. They technically don’t apply outside Israel or to other nations. On the other hand, we were all to live in Israel, and so we do need to maintain a life according to God’s original intentions. And of course, Christians are idolatrous and we should not intermarry with them. But what about a non-religious woman? Or a Buddhist? (Regardless of popular belief, I don’t think Buddhists worship the Buddha as God). Would that be prohibited? I think not in the same way. On the other hand, the Jewish family line would likely disappear after such intermarriage. So, I don’t know. Probably not punishable in the same way as in the verses you cite, but there would be an eventual problem.

But in Malachi, one of the major criticisms of the Jewish men who moved back to the Holy land, leaving the wives of their youth behind, was that they didn’t divorce them. Verse 2:16 is notoriously mistranslated as “I hate the putting away (divorce)”. But the Hebrew is correctly translated as, “If you hate her, put away.” 2:15 also correctly translated, refers to Abraham, who, with Sarah, lost faith and had a child with the Egyptian servant out of impatience. These, taken together, provide a different meaning of the text.

Mr. Cohen, very good. Truth unadulterated, unfiltered, un-candy-coated. Plain stated fact.

Jim D., the sacrifices were charity, as I explained. Whether grain offering (minhha) or animal qorban, it was money spent on the item. As with certain sacrifices, the atonement took place when the Kohanim ate it. That means charity to the Kohen atones, plainly.

Mishlei 11:4
לֹא יוֹעִיל הוֹן בְּיוֹם עֶבְרָה וּצְדָקָה תַּצִּיל מִמָּוֶת:
Fortune won’t benefit on a day of wrath, but charity will save from death.

Mishlei 21:3
עֲשׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט נִבְחָר לַיהוָה מִזָּבַח:
Doing charity and justice is preferred to HaShem than sacrifice.

Also, Mr. Cohen, people often have a western, Christian idea of the Prophets and Sages like Ezra. Shmuel sliced King Agag of Amalek into four pieces. David payed hundreds of Philistine foreskins as dowry for Mikhal. As you said, Nehemiah beat up Jews for intermarrying, and Mal’akhi cursed them.

There’s no getting around these things. Ezra, who was the father of all the Rabbis of the Talmud, was endorsed as leader of Israel by the three final Prophets who were also, of course, on the Sahnedrin in those days.

Jim D., you said “There is no specific prohibition outside of the land of Israel, or other than those inhabitants.”

This is NOT true. It’s only true by misinterpretation of the written Torah, that is, when you read it outside of the oral Torah’s detail and explanation. God commanded that we listen to the Sages in Devarim 17. There was a Sanhedrin in every generation from then until around 2,000 years ago. We have their written record of the oral Torah, which is the Mishne and Gemara which together make up the Talmud. The facts are, a Jew who doesn’t adhere to their words is a kofer/denier at the very least, and loses his place in the world to come. Also, a non-Jew who doesn’t, will not be able to fulfill the 7 universal mitzvot that all nations are required to follow at the bare minimum – thus he’ll also lose his place in the world to come, as well, if he doesn’t believe in the Sages. This is because the Sages explain the 7 mitzvot from the Torah and provide us with all the proper ways of keeping them, which amount to 60-70 something details (halakhot).

Jim D.

Aaron, you said, “That means charity to the Kohen atones, plainly.”

I asked you to cite the specific verses you had in mind when pronouncing your sweeping verdict, but you did not. Perhaps that is because you haven’t studied the verses yourself directly and sufficiently. Allow me to illuminate some aspects of the atoning sacrifices which should, but may not be, so plain to you. I will give two examples only, but there are more.

Leviticus 4 details how certain sacrifices atone for inadvertently doing things that were commanded by God to not be done, whether done by the people or even the high priest (1-3).

For guilt incurred on the people by errant sins of the priest, one of his bulls is brought. He applies some blood to the altar, pouring the rest out at the base (6-7), turns some of the fat into smoke (10), as well as burning the hide, head, shanks, innards and dung (11). The rest, he took outside the camp and burned it on the ash heap (“And he shall take the whole bull out…” (11). There is nothing left for eating, nor is eating mentioned here as part of the necessary process for expiating sin.

For sins of the whole community, for which they bore guilt, a bull is brought, the blood is handled in the same way as before, the burning as before, and the taking of the rest of the animal as before.

In both cases, atonement is effectuated by the actions described, without any consumption of the meat: “And he shall do to the bull as he did to the offense-offering bull, so shall it [the handling of the blood, the burning of fat on the altar, and the burning of the rest of the animal outside the camp], and be done to it [the people’s bull], “and the priest shall atone for them and it shall be forgiven them.” (20-21).

Later, in chapter 6, there are allowances made for the priestly families to obtain their sustenance, but that is done after the atoning procedures are completed. In fact, 6:22-23 specifically commands that in the cases where blood of offense offerings are brought into sanctum of the Tent of Meeting, it “shall not be eaten. In fire it shall be burned.”

I do not deny the importance of charity, however, in these verses Torah is clear: The atonement described is achieved without the eating of flesh, and charity to the priesthood had nothing to do with it.

Aaron, you, as many schooled in the way you were, are quick to pronounce sweeping absolutes. And perhaps you put Talmudic teachings above Torah itself.

Jim, I cited verses proving charity atones. Sorry, but you lose at this point. Plus, if you can’t determine that the fact that when Kohanim ate certain sacrifices, they were atoned for, which is called using basic logic, then I don’t know how else to get through to you.

I have some advice for you, learn Torat Kohanim, the perush on VaYikra. I don’t have the time to look up all the verses from the early parashot and let you know, since Shabbat is coming in in less than an hour, but perhaps I’ll do it motzash.

Jim D.

Shabbat Shalom, Aaron.

The Real Messianic

With loving-kindness and truth will iniquity be expiated

Prov 16:6. That may also be included in the charity, but I guess it’s not only charity by itself Aaron, but to be nice and kind to others. I guess not everybody have money to spend on chrarity and we can see that in the Torah when a flour cake is brought instead of an animal…

Also, I like your last comment Jim. It’s interesting to know that nothing is left… I do remember that the sacrifice is for the temple purity… as you said in a previous comment “Why would the blood of the purification offerings be applied to these holy objects instead of the sinful persons? Because they have already personally “atoned” through punishment and/or repentance. It is only after personal atonement (in the sense of forgiveness) that they could approach the sanctuary with their sin offering and the blood used for atonement in the sense of purifying. The purpose there was not to purify the person, but to purify the holy objects in the sanctuary that were polluted by their sins”

So, what can we conclude? Repenting is always needed, doing good to others / Charity / obedience of the Torah is needed to show true repentance, then the sacrifice purifies for the temple? Does that make sense? I guess so…

For inter-marriage, I think we have to see it like that… First, when a Jew (especially male) marries a non-jew, it will first bring problem in the family. Interfaith is never good, and especially if the other partner is religious. So you don’t want that, first for conflict in the family. Also, if it’s a man marring a women, the Jewish line will be cut off… Not good, you lower the quantity of Jews in the world, basically. But even if it’s a women marrying a non-jew man, it’s likely that the children won’t follow G-d. That’s not good either, and will only bring the same result as if it was a man. Most likely the children will follow the mother’s religion thought, that’s proven by studies, so it might not be as bad. When you marry a non-jew, it results in your familly being cut off from Israel (them not being Jew anymore). The result is the same.

Julian

Gene, just as there are many different sacrifices in the Bible, for different purposes, so there are many ways of understanding Jesus’ sacrifice. But there is no Biblical sacrifice that corresponds to PSA.

April 9, 2016

Remi, a person is atoned through regretting his sin, admitting to HaShem what he did wrong, resolving not to return to the sin, which is what repentance really is, and asking forgiveness from HaShem for having sinned.

Depending on the seriousness of the sin, different possibilities come into play for repentance. Some sins are atoned right away with repentance, that the remorse and regret are enough of a payment. Yom Kipur atones for all “light” sins and helps atone for heavier ones. Heavier ones, like those that warrant kareth, death, etc, are atoned by true repentance as per the first paragraph above, and Yom Kipur, and finally via suffering that HaShem sends upon the person to complete the atonement.

Giving up charity brings atonement because you’re bringing a “judgment” or “hardship” upon yourself by giving some of your money away. Sacrifices were money, animals and grain offerings are a person’s livelihood, they have monetary value.

Fasting atones because it is a hardship brought upon oneself. It works towards atonement assuming the intent is for having sinned or for crushing the evil inclination.

This is just a brief overview of what’s written in Mishne Torah, hil. Teshuva (laws of repentance). I can provide a link in English. The book Mishne Torah is a code of halakha, it isn’t the Rambam’s (the author’s) opinion, it is all extracted from the Gemara, and the Rambam cites verses in Tanakh that mention these things, as well.

April 9, 2016

*”Different possibilities come into play for ATONEMENT”, I meant to write.

April 11, 2016

It’s a must to read up on how atonement is attained, and it can be attained and is attained without sacrifices. While these halakhot apply mainly to Jews who are obligated to the 613 commandments, Bnei Noahh also attain forgiveness and atonement from sins through everything mentioned here except Yom Kipur which isn’t obligatory for them.

April 11, 2016

Meant to provide a link in the above comment. Here it is, all you need to know about repentance, forgiveness of sins, and atonement:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/911887/jewish/Teshuvah.htm

The Real Messianic

April 11, 2016

Thanks Aaron for the comment… I will read the article, it’s really useful :)

April 15, 2016

Let’s take a look at the last few halakhot of the first chapter there:

Halacha 3
At present, when the Temple does not exist and there is no altar of atonement, there remains nothing else aside from Teshuvah.

Teshuvah atones for all sins. Even a person who was wicked his whole life and repented in his final moments will not be reminded of any aspect of his wickedness as [Ezekiel 33:12] states “the wickedness of the evil one will not cause him to stumble on the day he repents his wickedness.”

The essence of Yom Kippur atones for those who repent as [Leviticus 16:30] states: “This day will atone for you.”

Halacha 4
Even though Teshuvah atones for all [sins] and the essence of Yom Kippur brings atonement, [there are different levels of sin and hence, differences in the degree of atonement.] There are sins that can be atoned for immediately and other sins which can only be atoned for over the course of time. What is implied?

If a person violates a positive command which is not punishable by karet and repents, he will not leave that place before he is forgiven. Concerning these sins, [Jeremiah 3:22] states: “Return, faithless children! I will heal your rebellious acts.”

If a person violates a prohibition that is not punishable by karet or execution by the court and repents, Teshuvah has a tentative effect and Yom Kippur brings atonement as [Leviticus, loc. cit. states “This day will atone for you.”

If a person violates [sins punishable by] karet or execution by the court and repents, Teshuvah and Yom Kippur have a tentative effect and the sufferings which come upon him complete the atonement. He will never achieve complete atonement until he endures suffering for concerning these [sins, Psalms 89:33] states: “I will punish their transgression with a rod.”

When does the above apply: When the desecration of God’s name is not involved in the transgression. However, a person who desecrated God’s name, even though he repented, Yom Kippur arrived while he continued his repentance, and he experienced suffering, will not be granted complete atonement until he dies. The three: repentance, Yom Kippur, and suffering have a tentative effect and death atones as [Isaiah 22:14] states: “It was revealed in my ears [by] the Lord of Hosts, surely this iniquity will not be atoned for until you die.”

Concerned Reader

April 19, 2016

Gene and Remi, you have said that G-d despises human sacrifices taking place outside of the temple system, but what about Nadav and Avihu’s death as per Rashi on Leviticus 10:3?

What about all the children of Israel’s enemies who die in Tanakh? Children!

Rabbinic literature often has the righteous, (even if they may appear to be unrighteous) dying to preserve the nation, or to atone for the nation’s misdeeds. If you are going to fault the Christians for being so “unbiblical” about a dying man atoning, you have to explain why this idea is so prevalent in the Midrash.

I have noticed in my studies that everything that Christians believe has some analogue in the relevant literature. The main difference is that in Judaism, these ideas are ok as long as they are only understood allegorically.

Agents in Torah call themselves “god” in first person, and that’s ok so long as its metaphor.

Messiah ben Yosef dies in a war and his death leads to collective Teshuvah when ben David comes (which atones for sin.)

and lest we forget the modern Jesus replicas that Judaism has produced without the help of Christians.

April 19, 2016

“Gene and Remi, you have said that G-d despises human sacrifices taking place outside of the temple system, but what about Nadav and Avihu’s death as per Rashi on Leviticus 10:3? ”

G-d doesn’t despise punishing some sinners in judgement for their own sin. It’s not the same thing as sacrificing the innocent to atone for the guilty. You are confusing two separate things.

“The main difference is that in Judaism, these ideas are ok as long as they are only understood allegorically.”

Ah, but that’s a huge difference.

“and lest we forget the modern Jesus replicas that Judaism has produced without the help of Christians.”

There are no replicas of Jesus in Judaism. The original “Jewish” Jesus himself is a poor replica of a Jewish messiah. The concept of a messiah is a Jewish concept that predates Jesus. And let me remind you (again) that Jesus is *god* in mainstream Christianity, while in Judaism only a few present day excommunicated Chabad oddballs, no doubt themselves influenced by Christianity, would ascribe godhood to any mortal (which would make it an exception that proves the rule).

Concerned Reader

April 20, 2016

Ah, but that’s a huge difference. Not when hundreds of old Christian sects were basically saying all that stuff metaphorically as well.

G-d doesn’t despise punishing some sinners in judgement for their own sin.

Are little children enemies of a G-d who is an omniscient being?

Concerned Reader

April 20, 2016

while in Judaism only a few present day excommunicated Chabad oddballs, no doubt themselves influenced by Christianity, would ascribe godhood to any mortal (which would make it an exception that proves the rule).

Gene, all that those oddballs are doing is reconciling a contradiction. It has nothing to do with the Christians.

The Tanakh has mortals that it calls “god” (in terms of them being a mouthpiece.) If that figurative sense is an ok and kosher thing to do, then scripture has no recourse against the millions of pagans who also apply the title this way to people and things figuratively. The only out is to say that its not figurative, and that G-d really is there when these entities bear his name and authority.

April 20, 2016

“Are little children enemies of a G-d who is an omniscient being?”

Little children suffer all the time as a consequence of actions of adults, not for being themselves at fault. G-d doesn’t request that people sacrifice them nor does He do so Himself – only godless pagans did that and G-d was very much against it. Again, you pointing to children doesn’t help your main point.

“If that figurative sense is an ok and kosher thing to do, then scripture has no recourse against the millions of pagans who also apply the title this way to people and things figuratively.”

The idol-worshipers don’t apply many of their objectionable (from Jewish point of view) titles “figuratively” to people and things. Jesus is “divine” and a “god” literally in a Trinitarian Christian mind. You are comparing apples and oranges, CR. It’s an erroneous comparison.

Concerned Reader

April 21, 2016

The idol-worshipers don’t apply many of their objectionable (from Jewish point of view) titles “figuratively”

YES THEY DO IN THEIR OWN RELIGIONS CONTEXTS THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME!!! Go study something that isn’t ONLY FOUND IN your sacred text, and maybe you would learn that.

you are so busy laying the idolatry label on the Christians that you forget about the 1000s of other forms of idolatry. You have Christianity is idolatry blinders on. You forget all other world religions.

Little children suffer all the time as a consequence of actions of adults, not for being themselves at fault.

YOU ARE MISSING THE WHOLE OBJECTION WITH THIS! IT IS NOT MORAL TO KILL BABIES!

Why does G-d command that women and children should die? If children are not at fault, then G-d shouldn’t be commanding anyone to kill anyone’s children should he?

The tired apologetic goes, “well, G-d knew that they would grow up to be enemies of the Jews, so they had to die.” So much for free will then huh? Self determination?

pull the beam out of your own eye before talking about repugnant Christian doctrines.

Your own religion says that G-d afflicts the innocent with “stripes of love,” that the “death of the righteous brings atonement,” Your Tanakh values religious martyrdom, and also vengeance.

If I see an apple fall from a tree, I know its an apple tree.