I agree that "restoring the faith delivered to the saints" is a worthy endeavor...however, I have searched for exactly what that faith was, and how best to recover it. I personally do not feel that theology is the correct vehicle for this job. In another thread, I was asked "By the way, much of your argument is based on the hatred of "SOME" early Christians towards the Jews. Historical honesty demands that you point out this was not the case in general"
I wish to talk about the Christian's "historical honesty"...

In the late nineteenth century, Julius Wellhausen, a German scholar, helped develop a theory about the Old Testament scriptures which had a tremendous impact on the way the Bible was interpreted. Relying only on the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Wellhausen deduced from literary analysis that the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses at all, but assembled from the work of many people from different eras, starting from the time of king David and going well on into the Second Temple period. This teaching of textual analysis, known as "higher criticism", was hailed as the most objective and scientific view of the Old Testament to date, and was to hold sway over most of the serious biblical studies well into the twentieth century, and still has considerable influence today. What the Christian Theologians deduced from this teaching was that the first five books of the Bible were not actually written by Moses. Also, many of the legalistic and religious parts of the Law were actually written by priests during the second Temple era (around 400-500 B.C.E.). They concluded that Judaism was a "developed" religion which had evolved over the centuries. and the Christian theologians concluded that Judaism was not as authoritative as the New Testament since it was the work of Jewish priests and not the true "Word of God". This school of thought has greatly influenced Christianity on the way it looked at and thought about the religion of Judaism over the past one hundred years. It was a clear victory for positivism, and the "higher criticism" became the new scientific weapon for the scholarly Christian community.

According to the Church, to become a Christian one must accept Jesus. However, this statement is deceptive. What the Church really wants you to believe in is Christian theology, for if you really believed in Jesus, the Jewish Rabbi from Galilee, you would have some major problems with Christian theology, since there are many teachings of Jesus on matters such as the Law that are in direct opposition to what Christian theology teaches. How the Church dealt with this is the subject of this chapter.

First, lets look at the theological line of thinking of the Church Fathers, which developed as follows: God sent His son Jesus, who was really God Himself, to assume human form and live amongst mankind to fulfill the Law and to teach the world what are essentially Christian theological principles. They believed Paul and the Apostles had a highly developed knowledge of Christian Theology, and the early Church Fathers had to struggle to extract the complex theological ideas from the often cryptic writings of the New Testament. However, the Church Fathers were guided by the Holy Spirit, and were able to keep the true interpretations against many false theologies and doctrines. The Church teaches that, because of its authority, these theological interpretations are the only legitimate interpretations to the New Testament. These basic theological interpretations, as developed by the Church Fathers, are the foundations of all Church doctrine today in all Christian denominations, whether Catholic or Protestant. Also, because of the Churchs claims that the Holy Spirit had an active hand in the interpretation and transmission of the text, then both the New Testament and the theological interpretations are an accurate reflection of the will of God.

This is, more or less, the Christian line of thought, even today. There is not one issue which I have stated above that cannot be challenged. Not only were the Church Fathers nearly totally ignorant of Jesus religion, but they were virulently anti-Semitic as well. This was an important factor in the development of theology. The early Christian fear and hatred of the Jews was the independent variable which shaped even the most benign of interpretations. This is what some of the Church Fathers said about the Jews, obviously as they were guided by the Holy Spirit: Slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, adversaries of God, men who show contempt for the Law, foes of grace, enemies of their fathers' faith, advocates of the Devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men whose minds are in darkness, leaven of the Pharisees, assembly of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness. Gregory of Nyssa (331-396 C.E.) The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan....they are worse than wild beasts. The synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of Jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition....The Jews have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animal. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill, and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen....The synagogue is a curse, obstinate in her error, she refuses to see or hear, she has deliberately perverted her judgment; she has extinguished with herself the light of the Holy Spirit....I hate the Jews because they violate the Law....I hate the synagogue because it has the Law and the prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews. John Chrysostom (344-407 C.E.) This is but a sample of the way the Church Fathers felt about the Jews as they went about the task of interpreting the New Testament. Christians claim that the Church Fathers were full of the spirit when they made their interpretations. They were certainly full of something, but I do not think it was the Holy Spirit.

Not only did Christian theologians refuse to interpret the events and teachings of Jesus and Paul within the context of their religion (Judaism) but spent a great deal of the theological process to cover-up the Jewish teachings, and to transform Jesus and Paul into Gentile figures. Thus, from the beginning, theology was based upon an artificial structure, that the interpretation of the teaching of the New Testament did not take into account the religious context in which the principle figures of the New Testament operated, and this set the tone for the foundation of theological thinking from the first century to the present.

The greatest obstacle the Church Fathers faced was the glaring fact that their religion was based upon the life and teaching of a Jewish Rabbi. Thus; much of the theological system was geared to show that the Jewish interpretations were wrong. Here is a typical Christian viewpoint: Tradition, in Pharisaic thought, began as a commentary on the Law, but it was ultimately raised to the level of the Law itself. To justify this teaching, it was maintained that the "oral law" was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the "written Law" or Torah (Pirke Aboth, 1.1). The ultimate in this development is reached when the Mishna states that oral law must be observed with greater stringency than the written law, because statutory law (that is, oral tradition) affects the life of the ordinary man more intimately than the more remote constitutional law (the written Torah) (M. Sanhedrin,10.3)...the New Testament affirms that [this] tradition had largely neglected the real intent of the Law. (Nelson, 1983). This encapsulates the basic theme of Christian theology concerning Judaism; that the body of Jewish interpretations of the Scriptures (the Oral Law, or the Talmud) became more important than the actual Scriptures themselves. The great weakness in this argument is that the Christians did exactly the same thing: their body of theological interpretations were ultimately raised to the level of the Law [Scripture] itself, and were indeed taught to be observed with greater stringency. Man-made concepts such as the Trinity, the incarnation, as well as holidays, dogmas, and rites such as Baptism and the Eucharist were taught as God-given commandments, even though there is no mention at all of God commanding men to observe them. The last sentence in the above quote gives away the true theological interpretation: that the Bible must be interpreted within the context of Christian theology, and not Rabbinic Law. In effect, the Church maintained that its theological interpretations were better than the Jewish interpretations. When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, this theological concept was maintained by political, economic, and military force, and would continue to be maintained throughout Christian lands until the formation of the State of Israel in the mid-twentieth century.

Up to 1948, Christianity had been able to silence the Jews who lived in Christian lands, and make sure that their theological claims went unchallenged. After 1948, the Jews were no longer at the mercy of Christian governments, for they now had their own land back where they could at least defend themselves (as their Arab neighbors found out the hard way) and were able to produce their own interpretations (as well as criticisms of the Christian interpretations) without fear of reprisal. The effects of this freedom of challenging the Church were almost immediate. Less than twenty years after the Founding of the State of Israel, the largest body of Christianity, the Catholic Church, changed its long-standing doctrine of the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus. From this point on, the cracks in the artificial system of theological interpretations became more and more apparent as theologians suddenly had access to the primary sources of Jewish interpretations. This led to a rapid shift among many of the progressive theologians to the claims and teachings of traditional theology, and there has been an attempt for a re-Judaization of theology.

The problem with this approach is that the basic tenants of Christian theology are simply not compatible with Jewish concepts and interpretations. An example of this is the teaching in the Oral Law of the Seven Laws of Noah, which, according to Rabbinic Judaism, is the basic foundation of religious belief and practice for non-Jews. According to the Oral Law (the Talmud), non-Jews were obligated to keep seven Laws of the Torah which were given to Noah and his descendants; seven laws prohibiting idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, forbidden sexual relations, cruelty to animals, and to set up courts of justice to make sure that these laws are kept in non-Jewish cultures and societies. What the Rabbis taught was that Gentiles (non-Jews) were not obligated to keep the Jewish Laws of the Torah (such as keeping the Sabbath, or dietary laws, or sacrificial laws), and that the Gentile and Jewish portions of the Torah were distinct and separate; the Jews had their set of Laws, and the Gentiles had another. This concept; a universal, all encompassing religion for non-Jews, separate, but within the context of Judaism, goes against practically every principle the Church has taught about Jewish Religion.

Keeping this concept in mind, that the Jews had a distinct set of Laws for non-Jews, let us look at some of the passages in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 7:17-20, Paul writes: As to each as God has distributed and called, so let him walk; to all the churches I command. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? Let him not be uncircumcised. Was a man called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumsicion is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God. Let each one remain in the calling in which he was called. This certainly seems to be a clear case of Paul teaching that there were two different callings, which was certainly in line with the concept mentioned above.

Of course, Christians have been taught that we, as Gentiles, are not under the Law, and a great part of this comes from the theological interpretations of Pauls writings. In Galatians, Christians have interpreted chapter three as Pauls teaching that Gentiles were not under the Jewish Law, but were saved by faith. Yet, according to the Talmud, this is precisely so. All that is required of a non-Jew for life in the World to Come is to believe in God, and of Gods revelation at Sinai, and to keep the Seven Laws of Noah. Keeping the Jewish Laws of the Torah were not required; in fact, non-Jews were forbidden to keep many of the Jewish Laws which were expressly given to Israel. Two chapters later, in Galatians 5:3, Paul says: And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. Again, according to the Talmud, there were two types of proselytes to Judaism: a ger tzaddik, which was a full convert to Judaism, where the convert was circumcised had the full status of a Jew in every way, including his or her obligation to keep the 613 Laws of the Torah. The other type of proselyte was the ger toshav, who affirmed his faith in the God of Israel, was not circumcised, and only kept the Seven Laws of Noah.

Many of the passages in the New Testament which the Christian theologians had difficulty in explaining can be interpreted through the concept of the Noahide Laws. In Acts 21:17-26, Paul returns to Jerusalem after his third journey, sometime around the year 57 C.E. and is met by James and the elders of the Church. What happened next the Church has never been able to effectively explain.

[They] said to him (Paul); You see, brother, how many thousands and thousands there are among the Jews who believe, and all are zealots for the Law. And they were informed about you that you teach all the Jews among the nations apostasy concerning Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to live according to [our] customs. What then? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore, do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a [Nazarite] vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay for them to have their heads shaved, and all men will know that these things that they have been informed about you are nothing, but that you yourself are keeping the Law.
At this point, according to Christian theology, Paul should have told James and the elders that, because of the sacrifice of Jesus, he was no longer under the Law but under grace, and that there was no longer a need for sacrifices, since Jesus fulfilled the Law. Remember, this event occurred after Paul had written his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, where he gives his viewpoints on the Law. What then does Paul do? Does he stand up to James and the elders and tell them off? Hardly; the next day he (Paul) goes into the Temple with the four men and offers sacrifices, to show that he keeps the Jewish Law, the Torah.

How does theology deal with this? Many theologians and commentators are strangely silent on this passage. Theologians who do comment on it offer excuses: the best explanation that the theologians can come up with is that Paul is merely making concessions to James and the other Jewish Christians by keeping Jewish customs. In truth, this is one of the most baffling and disturbing passages for theology, for it seemingly undoes everything which they say Paul had been teaching on Jesus fulfilling the Law. If we follow the theological reasoning and say that Paul was merely giving in to Jewish customs, then Paul is certainly guilty of the sort of hypocritical action which Paul himself raked Peter over the coals for in the second chapter of Galatians, and that Paul himself is a hypocrite and a liar. These are not the kind of credentials one would want from a writer of "scripture": Know this, that the Law is not laid down for a just man, but for the Lawless man...for liars [1 Timothy 1:9-10]; For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, especially the ones of the circumcision whose mouths must be stopped, who overturn whole households teaching things they ought not to teach, for the sake of dishonest gain [Titus 1:10-11]; Now the Spirit clearly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, attending to misleading spirits and teachings of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy [1 Timothy 4:1-2]; Therefore I urge you to imitate me [1Corinthians 4:16].

If one understands the Talmudic teachings of the Noahide Law, then the events in Acts 21:17-26 make sense. Paul is a Jew, under the Jewish Law. Although in his epistles, written to a Gentile audience, are about non-Jews not being under the Jewish Law, he himself is a Jew and must keep the Law. In Acts 16:3 Paul has Timothy circumcised, which goes against Pauls own teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:17-20 mentioned above. But Timothys mother was Jewish, even though his father was not [Acts 16:1]. What Paul did was in strict accordance with the Jewish Law of circumcision. In Judaism, unlike all other nations, it is the status of the mother, not the father, which determines whether one is a Jew or a Gentile.

Many of the difficult teachings of Jesus can also be explained within the context of this teaching. There is perhaps no more important subject in theology than Jesus fulfilling the Law, for it is precisely this theological principle which lets the Church invalidate any and all Judaic interpretations. Jesus' statement on fulfilling the Law in Matthew 5:17 is held to be the authoritative basis for the concept of Christian theology's superiority over the Mosaic Law, although it is Paul whom the Church turns to for the "scriptural" theological backing for this argument. Paul's discourses on the Law, particularly in Romans chapters 2-7 and Galatians chapters 3-5, have been used extensively to support this Christian belief that the Mosaic Law was merely a temporary ordinance until the Christ came. Matthew 5:17, by itself, seems to imply that Jesus fulfilled the Law, but they have a hard time explaining this replacement theology when Matthew 5:17 is read in context with the next two verses: Amen! I say to you: until heaven and earth pass away not one iota or one point of the Law will by no means will pass away, until all things come to pass. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches this to men will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches these [commandments] will be called will be called great in the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 5:18-19]. These two verses have confused theologians terribly for centuries, for they totally negate the theological implications from the previous verse about fulfilling the Law.

In Mark 2:22, Jesus says: And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the wineskins and will ruin the wine and the wineskins. Theologians have traditionally interpreted the verse as Jesus teaching that the new wine (Christianity) bursts the old wineskins (the Jewish Law), which they say is another example of Jesus teaching that he fulfilled the Law. But in Matthew 9:17 Jesus says: Neither do they put new wine into old wineskins, otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. But they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved. In Luke 5:37-39 this parable is repeated, with the additional verse (39): And no one having drunk old [wine] desires new [wine], for he says, the old is good. If the new wineskins represent Christianity, and the old wineskins represent Judaism (as the theologians maintain), then what is Jesus teaching in Matthew and Luke?

In Luke 10:25-28 we have the story: And behold, a certain lawyer stood up testing him [Jesus] saying: Teacher, what do I do to inherit eternal life? And [Jesus] said to him; What is written in the Law, and how do you read [understand] it? And he answered, saying; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. And he [Jesus] said to him; You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live. So when asked how to obtain eternal life, Jesus does not tell the lawyer that he must believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be baptized and become a Christian; instead, Jesus tells the lawyer (Jewish scholar) that, in order to be saved, you must keep the Law! The two scriptures he quotes are verses from the Torah: Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. The first verse is from the Jewish prayer the Shema, a prayer that every Jew over the age of thirteen says the first thing in the morning and the last thing before he or she goes to bed. It is the closest thing to a Jewish declaration of faith there is. Jesus certainly understood this [Mark 12:29].

There are texts in the New Testament which support theological principles. These are called proof texts, since they are proof that Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong. Many of your lay Christians, who never get beyond Sunday school theology, are taught to pull these proof verses out of the Bible for whatever the situation calls for. There are also many verses which wreck theological principles, such as the ones mentioned above. Needless to say, these are not taught in Sunday school. Since there are as many verses which disprove Christian theology as there are verses that prove it, it would seem that there would be a problem here. Of course, the Christian defense is that I am taking these passages out of context, and that I must interpret them theologically, so that they are in theological harmony with the other verses. But here is the trap they have put themselves in: the authority for their theological interpretations is backed up by the New Testament, which is only to be interpreted by theology, which is backed up by the New Testament, and so on. Christians take later theological ideas and project them back onto the teachings of Jesus, claiming that Jesus was the source of these same theological ideas. But, as any competent Christian scholar knows, the context of the Church was Judaism, not Christianity. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, not a Christian priest. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was the Torah, not Christian theology.

When this approach is used, recognizing the Torah as the foundation of the teachings of the New Testament, there is suddenly greater harmony between the two Testaments. There is no need to try to explain that we are no longer under the Jewish law for the simple reason that we were never under it in the first place. For instance, we know that the Law teaches that non-Jews are not required to keep the Sabbath, in fact, they are forbidden to keep it in the manner of the Jews (San. 58b) as a day of rest. It was a Commandment given to the nation of Israel only, not to all mankind. There is absolutely no mention of it in the New Testament regarding the Gentiles. Nowhere does it say that Gentiles are now required to keep the Sabbath, or that the Sabbath is now supposed to be moved from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. The commandment in the Torah is quite clear: Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever... (Ex. 31:16-17). The only mention of Sabbath observance is in Pauls epistle Colossians 2:18, where he says Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a feast day or a new moon or sabbaths.... But the Church teaches that Christians are supposed to keep the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath has now been moved to Sunday, even there is not one shred of evidence of this in the Bible. It is purely a theological teaching; to paraphrase the quote above, a teaching...ultimately raised to the level of Law itself....

This one simple rabbinic concept, that Gentiles are not under the Jewish Law, was something the Church Fathers did not know, for the simple reason that they knew nothing of the religion of Jesus and Paul. But, in their ignorance, they weaved this complex explanation that Jesus has fulfilled the Law, and so we are no longer under it, and that it has been done away with. Then, the Church Fathers turned right around and tried to put Gentiles under Jewish Laws that they had no business putting them under, such as the Sabbath, or tithes.

There is absolutely nowhere in the New Testament that even suggests that non-Jews are supposed to tithe. Tithing was a sort of income tax to be paid to the Levites, since they were not given any land, but were charged to maintain the Tabernacle and later the Temple. A second tithe was for making sure that there was something saved up for the three pilgrimage festivals that were held every year, when all adult male Jews were required to go to Jerusalem. If you read ch. 14 of Deuteronomy carefully, you will see that it is divided into two parts. The first half of the chapter deals with the laws of Kashrut, or what the Jews are permitted to eat. The second half of the chapter deals with tithes. Nowhere does it even hint that you are supposed to give ten percent of your earnings to the Church. In fact, what the Torah says is this: But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or strong drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household (Deut. 14:24-26). Yes, you read it right. God commanded the Children of Israel to take their tithe and buy whatever their little hearts desired; good food, good wine, and to go to Jerusalem and have a grand Thanksgiving feast, and to praise God. Dont expect to hear a sermon on this passage anytime soon. The incredible irony is, the Church on one hand went to great lengths to explain that Christians are not under the Law, and then turned right around and put them under that same Law that they just spent so much time explaining that they were not under. Why did the Church do this? The explanation is really quite simple. If Christians knew that they really didnt have to observe the Sabbath, or to tithe, then the Church would be both broke and powerless. It is a theological requirement, not a Biblical requirement, which says that Christians are supposed to go to church on Sundays and to cough up ten percent of their earnings to the church.

Again, let me bring you back to that circle of authority I talked about. Why must Christians keep the Sabbath and tithe? Because Jesus said so, and Jesus is God. But Jesus didnt say so...or Paul or anyone else in the New Testament. And if Jesus really was God, then it was Jesus who told the children of Israel to observe the seventh day forever, and to exchange their tithes for money and to spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or strong drink, for whatever your heart desires. But Christians are not under the Law, they are under Theology; theology which was invented and taught by hateful, ignorant men.

So, to get to the point of the thread, why does Christianity persist in clinging to theology as a means of Biblical interpretation? It is a barrier to understanding the faith delivered to the saints....

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Answers

Alan, Alan, Alan.....

What a target rich environment you have "painted" here.

My only problem right now is time....I've got to go teach an O.T. Survey course.

I'll get back to you in time.

Take care my friend!

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Oh....but in the meantime....you need to answer my question....

"If Jesus was simply a Rabbi who enforced the teachings of the Torah, why did the Jews, at the hands of the Romans, put Jesus to death on the cross??"

And please, do not give me "The Catholic church says..." answer because frankly....I don't give a wooden nickel what the Catholic church thinks, does, or says.

For instance, the official RCC position on creation is "theistic evolution" (i.e., God created the first two molecules and then evolution took over). It does go to show you though, it would take a miracle for evolution to work!:)

Again, I point this out, in an attempt to get you to quit creating a "straw man" than you are constantly thrashing.

Again, I don't care what the Catholic church teaches on anything.

Now....your answer sir devoid of any references to RCC.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Alan....

I got a little break here.....so I thought I would "smart bomb" just one of your arguments.

Let's see.....which one.....OK...let's do the Wellhausen thing....heretofore referred to as "Jewels." (His first name was Julius.)

You completely misrepresent the motives of "Jewels"....and I challenge all on the forum to follow up and simply do an encyclopedia research of "Jewels" and it will bear out what I am about to say.

His motive for his work WAS NOT to show the superiority of Christianity. In fact, for years "Jewels" has been "public enemy #1" of conservative biblical scholars who reject his liberal "cut and paste" method of biblical criticism.

The motive for his work....was not theology....but....trying to coincide biblical history with the theory of evolution (which during his time was having affects on all disciplines....be it...sociology, pscychology, or anthropology).

The argument could even be made that his intentions were good. Evolutionary theory had brought the Bible (O.T. and N.T.) into question (due to its view of creation). Some were losing the faith. "Jewels" (et. al.) attempt was to reconcile Bible with history AS PERCEIVED BY EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

This was the seedbed for what later became known as "neo-orthodoxy" which essentially states that faith is the result of "experience".....not propositional truth (i.e., the Bible).

In essense, "Jewels" (in his mind) was able to coincide the text with evolutionary theory.....but what he developed was a problem of how to have an authoritative Bible.....that was factually wrong. The "neo- orthodox" view was (and is) "it don't matter anyway....because we experience God."

So that's the first misconception I would like to clear up. "Jewels" did not have a "Jewish theological axe to grind." His was an attempt to concide the text along with evotionary theory....and known historical facts....(also known as the "historical-grammatical" approach....which is also rife with problems).

And....just for the record.....conservative scholars (Christian or Jewish) have always rejected "Jewels".....but now.....even the MAJORITY of liberal scholars reject his approach to the text.

Again Al....it's a "straw man."

Just so happens I'm also giving a lecture tonight on "Neo-orthodoxy as the Groundwork for Pluralism"......so this was kind of fresh on my mind.

That ought to give you something to chew on for while Al!! :)

Don't forget....answer my question.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

OK....got time for another one.

Alan....the Church Fathers. You put way too much stock in what they say.

The Church Fathers are "enlightening".....but they are not "illumined."

Granted....again....the RCC may see it that way. However, my view, as well as that of many others in the Christian church is that they do not come on par with the Apostles. We read what they say to help us understand the history of the church in the second-third centuries....they help us in understanding some texts and how the church dealt with some issues.

However, we feel perfectly comfortable disagreeing with them and saying that in a number of things......they are all washed up.

So again....another "straw man" put up by you (i.e., the Church Fathers)......is irrelevant.

All I got time for now.....get back with you later.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Alan....

Playing with you is like playing football with a guy...that makes up all the rules. Kind of like...when you score a touchdown it's 6 points for you....and when I score a touch down....it's still 6 points for you.

You have bound our hands. You use the N.T. to justify a point you are making.....then....when we use the N.T. you pitch it...."Oh...that's muddied....and not inspired."

Here's the fact....you ended up in a forum where people have just a little more education than you thought (evidenced by your condescending remarks). Your remarks, though full of information, are misconstrued and misinterpreted in order to sharpen your axe to grind. When confronted....again you simply say....."That doesn't count."

Well Alan....that makes it difficult to have a serious discussion. As I said before....you are not the "messiah" of biblical criticism. Unfortunate for you, most of us have heard it all before.....and don't buy it.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Thank you D.Lee for pointing out those Scriptures.....saved me the time.

Alan.....where in the world....please cite specific verses (not Rabbinic traditions....which is what got the Jews in trouble with Jesus)......that talk about "the blood" issue being "cruelty to animals."

Hmmmmmm...God tells people not to be cruel to animals....and then orders animal sacrifices. What's up with that??

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2000

Alan...

OK....let's suppose you are right....now....quote for me from the N.T.....where Jesus quoted from the Talmud and indicated that the "blood issue" was cruelty to animals. I'll await chapter and verse. All you have to do is give me chapter and verse.....and my ears were perk up to your claims.

John,

Like I said, with Alan....it's like playing football with him where he makes up the rules. If he scores it's 6 point....and if we score.....he still gets 6 points.

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

Hey Alan....

I killed a deer the other day.

According to the Rabbi's......I'm I going to hell???

Since you can't seem to share with us the appropriate Scriptures to show us otherwise.....maybe you got one of your "elevated" traditions you can share with us.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2000

Alan...."Baby"..."Sweetheart".....

Still waiting on my "chapter and verse" for the "blood issue--cruelty to animals" thing.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2000

Thanks Alan!!!

I wanted everyone to see the words of Jesus proven out by you....i.e., "You place your traditions above the Word of God."

This is why a conversation with you is fruitless. The Talmud means nothing to Christians.....they are simply traditions which led to the Jews rejection of Christ and their accusing Him of breaking the law.

Jesus never broke the law.....He broke the "hedges" (i.e., the oral traditions that surrounded the law).

The Talmud is an uninspirired collection of a bunch of old Jewish scribes sitting around debating the law.....pure and simple.

Interesting.....yeah....I got a copy of it.

Inspired?? No!! Word of God?? Definetly not!!!

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2000

Oh Alan....you are so absolutely correct!!!!

Martin Luther had no desire to leave the Catholic church....he simply wanted to reform it back to pure Augustinianism which the Catholic Church had, for all practical purposes, abandoned.

In essence, the difference between Catholicism and Protestanism is the difference between...."twiddly dee"....and "twiddly dum."

Which is exactly why.....I'm not a Protestant because Augustine was wrong!!!

The Christian Church has as it's goal...."restoration" as opposed to "reformation." We want to restore the church of the New Testament....not Augustinianism.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

Connie.....

I'd prefer that you NOT discuss you "underwear" on the forum.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

Alan, Can you please tell me what you think of the following, and,

Also, can you elaborate on what role you think baptism plays today since you say on another thread that it was for Jews and not for Christians? (I think that is what you said). Although I'm still holding in abeyance what I believe about your posts ~ ;-).

I have become interested in Messianic Judaism and this is from the site of one such person: (From the Netherlands, so his expressions differ from ours)

Messiah or Christ?

Which Title are we to use?

............................<*><*><*><*>..............................

We first have to realise that these expressions are not names but Titles who do need the definite article "the" in English.

We should really use the title The Messiah in English to indicate the Jew Yeshua HaMoshiyach, who actually is Yahweh who became a human, to enable reconciliation between mankind and its Creator. Which he did by taking upon Him the guilt of our sins.

Why this title is more appropriate then the Title The Christ has to be proven from Scripture.

It has also to be proven from Scripture that the use of the expression Jesus Christ as a name, is not giving full glory and honor to our redeemer.

We must consider that the use of Jesus Christ as His name, has its origin in the early Church who was determined to do away with anything that sounded even remotely Hebrew.

The earliest New Testament manuscripts we have to day, are copies made in a period that this Anti-Jewish feeling was well and truly established. It is therefore very likely that translators and copyists have substituted other expressions for the Hebrew names that might have been in the originals. We have therefore to concentrate on the Tanach (mistakenly called the Old Testament) in our study. We can not rely on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Tanach, because the original has authority and a translation has no authority. Also, later editions of the Septuagint have notable alterations and the originals are lost.

One thing we can establish and that is that the Greek Christos comes from the Greek Chri which means to rub with an oily or greasy substance and can be translated as anointed. That raises the question, why use a Greek word in the English language when there is a perfect English word available? Let us have a look at the Tanach for the use of the word anointed. It comes from the verb mashach, which means, "to smear with oil" . It appears 66 times in about 18 different grammatical forms. One of the forms is mashiyach, meaning anointed with oil and we find this used about 38 times.

The main occurrences are about people and objects connected with the Temple service.

We find, HaCohen HaMashiyach for a person anointed as a priest. Kings also were anointed.

Also articles can be anointed and are revered to as meshoochim. In our Bible translations it has also be used to indicate some one appointed by Yahweh for a special task who is not actually anointed with oil on behalf of Yahweh.

We find this in Isaiah 45:1 There Yahweh says: "limshiycho ligoresh" which is usually translated as: " to my anointed to Cyrus (Cores)." However, we should translate this as "to my deliverer to Cyrus."

Cyrus was never anointed with the special oil, (Exodus 30:23-25) but he was appointed by Yahweh to deliver Israel from exile. We find nowhere in the Bible that Yeshua actually was ceremonially anointed with the special oil required for this purpose or that it was required for Him, to enable Him to act as Savior.

Some people say that His Baptism was a symbolic anointing. They claim that the annointing of peoples and artifacts was pointing to the Holy Spirit and Yeshua recieved the Holy Spirit by His baptism.

This is not quit correct in my opinion. There is no reference in the Tanach that the anointing was temporarely and pointed to the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Yesshua was not annointed with the Holy Spirit since, as Yahweh, He was "The Holy Spirit".

Anointing was done to set someone or something apart for Yahweh. Yeshua was Yahweh in human form and one in unity and could not be set apart for Yahweh.

One of the main problems in Bible teaching is that people find, or are trying to find, to many symbolic references in the text. Yahweh uses to talk to us, through His word, as it is written in plain language with no hidden meanings.

From the foregoing we can say that Mashiyach, anointed, does not really fit Yeshua.

There is however a title that fits Him better and that is Moshiyach, meaning a deliverer or, one who delivers.

We can show this from the Tanach. Moshiyach is a form of the verb yasha meaning, to save or to deliver. It is found, in its different forms, 198 times in the Tanach. Also from yasha comes yesha which means salvation and occurs 35 times in the Tanach. Let us examine the use of this expression in Isaiah 43:3 It says in the first part: Kee anee YHVH eloheyach kedosh yisrael mosheeyech translated, Because I am Yahweh your deity, holy one of Israel, your deliverer. The literal meaning of Moshiyach as a form of yasha is, "The one talked about, causes to be salvation to you".

We find the same expression in Isaiah 49:26 and in Isaiah 60:17 When we read Isaiah chapter 60, we see that this talks about the final delivering of Israel. It also states clearly that Yahweh does the delivering.

Isaiah Chapters 58 through 63 are interesting reading, because they pertain to Israel today and in the near future. In Isaiah chapter 19 we find a prophesy against Egypt that not yet has been fulfilled and in verse 20 we read that Yahweh will send them a Savior and here we find in the original Hebrew, the word moshiya. Now I would like to point out a very very important statement.

It says in Isa. 44:11:

I, I, am Yahweh and apart from me there is no moshiya In Isa.45:15: Elohey yisrael moshiya

The context of these verses indicates that Yahweh stretches the point that He is Yahweh and does not call Himself Lord or any other name and He is the only moshiya. Moshiya is the hiphil form of yasha = caused to deliver, the mood of the verb is particle = unbroken continuity. We could therefore say it means, The one causing deliverance. There is an other very important text which ties in Yahweh with the Moshiya. Zechariah chapter 12 talks about the final attack on Jerusalem and chapter 14, talks bout the final delivery and the beginning of Yahweh's reign of shalom. Unfortunately our translators have muddled up this bit, by not translating the proper names, but substituting titles that could be anyone's.

I shall show some of the verses with the proper names inserted to make this a clear message.

Zech. 12:1 "The utterance of the word of YAHWEH concerning Israel, prophetically declares YAHWEH"

Zech. 12:4 "In that day prophetically declares YAHWEH I will ...." Here is established that Yahweh is the one involved and where ever You read Lord in your translation fill in Yahweh.

Zech. 12:10 " And I (Yahweh) will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me (Yahweh) whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

Now this clearly indicates that Yahweh, earlier in Isa.44:11 called moshiya (Messiah), is one and the same as He that died for our sins. We now read further in Zech. 14:3

3 Then shall YAHWEH go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. Zech. 14:9 " And shall be YAHWEH the king over all the earth, on that day shall be YAHWEH one and His name one.

This leaves no doubt that Yeshua the man is also Yahweh. This is something we cannot comprehend because our reasoning is limited to our environment. However mankind is not satisfied with this and like the first sin was wanting to know everything, the continuing sin is that mankind is bringing the Creator down to their own level and seek to explain the almighty in terms that they can comprehend.

They therefore, have come up with the concept of the trinity and they made Yahweh, who clearly states that He is ONE being (Deut. 6:4), in to three persons.

When we look at it objectively, we must conclude that they retired God the father to heaven and called Him the God of the Old Testament, the God of the Jews.

They took God the Son away from His Jewish background, Called Him Jesus Christ and made Him in to a New Testament God. They created a new religion, with all the trimmings of the old pagan religions, even the word God is from pagan origin. They called the new religion Christianity. They also said there is a third person to the Godhead and called Him the Holy Spirit.

But!

The Scriptures clearly state that Yahweh is ONE and therefore He is also Yeshua and also the Spirit the Holy One. I do not understand it yet, but when I see Him face to face I shall. You to will understand if and when you are going to see Him face to face. Until that time we simply have to accept and believe and this will be counted to us as righteousness From the foregoing, it is clear that we can not call Yahweh, "Mashiyach," that is anointed or Christ, because He Himself is the one that orders the anointing.

Therefore we can neither call Yeshua, "Mashiyach." However, we can call Him "Moshiya", since that is what He called Himself.

He is Moshiyeach, that means, your deliverer. From all this it is apparently clear that the Greek word Christ is not a proper title and surely not a proper name for Yeshua. That leaves us with a bit of a puzzle about some New Testament entries. However, we know that the Church wanted to do away with everything Jewish and copyists biased by Church doctrine made their own adaptations to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Remember we do not have the originals.

Let us have a look at the New Testament as we have it today. In John 1:41 we find: He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. {the Christ: or, the Anointed} (AV)

and in John 4:25: 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. (AV) Let us have a look at this. In John 1 :38.

Here they call Yeshua, "Rabbi" and they are therefore speaking in Hebrew/Aramaic. For clarification the translator/copyists added that this means teacher. Now while he is at this adding bit, he added at verse 41 the note that this means Christ. Can you imagine that a Hebrew speaking fellow is explaining to his Hebrew speaking brother, who might not even have known any Greek, the meaning of a Hebrew expression in Greek? Not very likely is it? Therefore this bit definitely was not in the original document. The Hebrew idiom used in the Greek text is Messian and this can not explicitly being referred to as a Hebrew form of Mashach nor of Moshiya. But taking in consideration Isaiah 44:11, it most likely was the word Moshiya that was used by Andrew when he spoke to his brother Simon. About John 4:25. Yeshua was talking to the Samaritan woman. Yeshua did not speak in Greek at any time because He would have lost His credibility as a Jewish teacher if He did. It is very unlikely that a Samaritan woman spoke Greek. It is therefore very unlikely that in the original manuscript the Greek word christos was used. Unfortunately there is no direct proof of it, but it is very likely from indirect proof from the Tanach, that the original manuscripts used the Hebrew idiom Messian or Messias and that this later has been replaced with Christos to take away the Jewish identity of Yeshua.

From all this we get an indication of the wisdom of Yahweh. He did not take any measure against this deception. We can see why. The expressions God and Jesus Christ are very often used as an expletive and swear words. But since they not really pertain to our Creator and Savior it is actually not blaspheming. On the other hand, He will always hear any one who genuinely seeks Him, whatever name they are using. He knows the heart and what the person is after. He shall in His own time and in His own way make Himself and His name known to anyone who is genuinely trying to get to know Him. Have you ever noticed that the short and guttural sounds of Jesus, Christ and God are very easily taken as expletives. However the Names Yahweh, Yeshua and the titles Elohiem and Moshiya are smooth flowing sounds that not easily are used as a short expletive. They but lend themselves more, for an adorable way of expression. Hallelu'Yah

Last updated 03/05/2000 06:56:21

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Alan

A suggestion. Before you continue in your statements of what I believe concerning the tithe, Sabbath and my "theology" you would do well to read many of the previous post on this forum.

I do not know one CC or C of C preacher that teaches that we should tithe or keep the Sabbath. Previous post will explain why we choose to meet on sunday and also why we give of our income.

Theology does not establish my biblical interpretation but rather Biblical interpretation establishes my theology. With your view of the scriptures I realize you will not agree with this.

If you will look closer at what the Christian Church / Churches of Christ believe and teach you might find that we indeed are making an honest attempt at living as God desires.

You need to know what I stand for before making statements as fact.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Faris,

Thank you... you took the words right out of my mouth... and saved me some time:)

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Goodness...let me see if I can answer all this quickly...

"If Jesus was simply a Rabbi who enforced the teachings of the Torah, why did the Jews, at the hands of the Romans, put Jesus to death on the cross??"

Well, the accounts are muddled. Of course, Jesus was a major political problem, coming into town as he did with a mob proclaiming him as the Messiah. His obvious attack on the Sadducees (cleansing the Temple, etc) surely made the Sadducees angrey...His refusal to show the "sign" of his being haMeshiach was certainly enough to convict him (cf. Deut. 18:15-22). And the Jew's who said, "We have no king but Caesar!" tells you which Jews were in the crowd...no observant Pharisee would have said such a thing. Many Jews in fact died martyr's deaths rather than say that...
...one of the interesting parts of this story was Barrabbas, the one who was released. Some texts have him named as "Jesus Barabbas", which is Aramaic for "Jesus son of G-d".

Again, I don't care what the Catholic church teaches on anything. Now....your answer sir devoid of any references to RCC.

??? I don't understand the hostility of the RCC, seeing how it developed the theology used by practically every protestant denomination nowadays...after all, if the Arians had won their point in 325, there would have been no "trinity" debate today...

Let's see.....which one.....OK...let's do the Wellhausen thing....heretofore referred to as "Jewels." (His first name was Julius.) You completely misrepresent the motives of "Jewels"....and I challenge all on the forum to follow up and simply do an encyclopedia research of "Jewels" and it will bear out what I am about to say. His motive for his work WAS NOT to show the superiority of Christianity. In fact, for years "Jewels" has been "public enemy #1" of conservative biblical scholars who reject his liberal "cut and paste" method of biblical criticism. The motive for his work....was not theology....but....trying to coincide biblical history with the theory of evolution (which during his time was having affects on all disciplines....be it...sociology, pscychology, or anthropology).

If you read my post, I didn't ascribe any motive to Wellhausen's work. I merely explained his theory...

As for what a CC or CofC or CforC believes, that was not my point. I'm not nitpicking what this or that denomination teaches...I'm just pointing out the traditional views of why Christians keep the Sabbath, and tithe. Believe me, I've heard pleanty of sermons along these lines, so don't tell me it isn't out there.....

Connie: yes, I agree that Jesus' language was Hebrew and Aramaic, since these are the languages of the Torah and the Talmud...

as far as what the Church Fathers said; it is of supremem importance, since they were the inventors of the religion we now know as Christianity. Remember: Jesus had nothing to do with the invention of Christianity. His "religion" was Judaism...

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Alan,

Do you mind answering my two questions? (I'm sorry I said, "Well?" in a kind of impudent way . That was rude).

The questions:

1: Do you believe Jesus was YWVH? (God) and,

2: In your opinion, what place does baptism have in the church today? ~ since you said it was for Jews and not for Christians? ~ Gentiles?

Connie

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Connie:
Do you believe that the TOrah is THE Word of G-d?
And; What place does the church have in the Torah?

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Yes, I believe that Torah is the word of God. I also beleive that Jeshua is the Word of God.

Usually, though, if someone is asked if Christ is God and believes He is the propitiation for that one's sins, they are only too happy to give a reason for the hope that is within them;(and the author of the material which I showed you says that the early church in trying to deny its Jewish roots is the entity which claimed that we are not to speak the Name of God out loud ~ that in reality, God is very happy when we say or write His Name. [Yahuweh or YWVH]).

And I am not sure what the Torah says about the church, but I have always understood the church to be the 'Body of Christ' and the eventual Bride of Christ. (At the Marriage Feast of the Lamb).

Until I came to this forum, I never heard anyone claim that baptism is a requirement for salvation, except that I understood the RCC and various Reformation churches do teach that. (Also infant baptism, which the CC/CoC does not teach).

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

Alan,

Why is it that you really do not answer the questions posed to you?

If you do not believe all the N.T. to be the inspired words of God, why do you use it in your arguments? I believe that question has been asked of you at least twice now, and still you do not answer.

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2000

I thought I have answered in detail. I certainly know the NT is NOT inspired by G-d; it is a man-made work. Too many hands over the centuries have corrupted the text...as for Jesus, I believe what he taught, not what is taught about him by the theologians...as I have repeatedly said: there is no greater barrier than theology to understanding the Bible.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Alan,

Your hatred of the Gentiles is showing. You talk about prejudice, but yours is apparent. Incidentally, the dash means everything. GOD Actually the Ten Commandments were theology! As Danny said this is a target rich environment, but I have neither the time or patience to deal completely with such babblings. And it is babblings when he will not answer Danny's question!

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Brethren:

It seems that Mr. Cecil has started this thread because the other one was full. And it is possible that everyone has stopped noticing whether there are any further things in the original thread. I am putting this note in here to inform you that the matters, which Mr. Cecil began discussing in that thread, are still being discussed there. However, the tread is getting long and in my next response to Him I will begin another thread.

I only want to notice just here that Mr. Cecil has failed to state the true position in the title to this thread wherein he appears to be genuinely interested in the restoration of the faith once delivered! Ha! This is not the truth in the least. He is interested in the fabrication of his imaginary faith that was over time DEVELOPED.

It is his view that God did not once FOR ALL DELIVER THE FAITH. Rather it is his view that MAN over a period of time DEVELOPED A FAITH, and called it Christianity.

Now I continue to affirm and will for all of my life that THE FAITH was once FOR ALL DELIVERED unto the saints. This delivery was a miraculous one and it is unassailable!

In fact, you may want to read in the original thread some of our discussions. I must warn you to be careful when entering the thread. At the moment Mr. Cecil is nauseous! Ha! He is also complaining that we are using the scriptures in that thread as well. It seems that he believes it is only his prerogative as an infidel to use the scriptures but Christians are walking in circles if they use it! Ha! Such nonsense from a man who has every appearance of having an education!

If he is genuinely nauseous and not simply malingering because thus far he has not found any way to offer evidence of his mere assertions. Then I do hope that he will recover in time to actually face the facts and at least attempt to offer evidence of his claims. For you see nothing much can be done to a mere assertion.

He is also complaining that we are using the scriptures in that thread as well. It seems it is only his prerogative as an infidel to us the scriptures but Christians are walking in circles if they use it! Ha! Such nonsense from a man who has every appearance of having an education!

And of course, as most of you might have suspected he has determined that I am "hateful". Are you suprized that he uses some of the same techniques that some in this forum use. If you cannot answer a person you simply charge them with being "hateful" enough to make an argument that does not leave you much room to escape! Ha!

How many of you think I should "soften up a bit" on this infidel and his assertions offered without proof? Maybe I need to be "more loving"!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Alan;

When we have manuscripts of the New Testament that date to within a generation of the original writings, when we can compare those with what we have today and discover that they are overwhelmingly in agreement in over 99.5% of the text, and when the places where they differ are so insignificant that they do not affect one single doctrinal point, when the evidence is so overwhelming that even MORMON Biblical scholars have been forced to admit that the New Testament is completely reliable, in opposition to their own church which holds the doctrine that it is not and risking excommunication ... When even those who hate to admit that it is reliable are forced to their knees before it, how can you then come up with this drivel that you "certainly 'know' the NT is NOT inspired by G-d; it is a man-made work"?

The wise and honored Rabbi Gamaliel once said something very profound, which is recorded in the New Testament book of Acts: "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men, you will only find yourselves fighting against God." I submit to you that Christianity has passed Rabbi Gamaliel's test, it has most certainly not failed, and therefore you are also found to be fighting against God.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Alan,

You say: "I thought I have answered in detail. I certainly know the NT is NOT inspired by G-d; it is a man-made work." You may claim that you "know" the NT is not inspired by God, simply man-made, but where is the evidence for such?

And I don't see your answer to Danny's question here, even though in your response to him you quote his question as if you are answering it.

Danny's question...

"If Jesus was simply a Rabbi who enforced the teachings of the Torah, why did the Jews, at the hands of the Romans, put Jesus to death on the cross??"

Your response...

"Well, the accounts are muddled. Of course, Jesus was a major political problem, coming into town as he did with a mob proclaiming him as the Messiah. His obvious attack on the Sadducees (cleansing the Temple, etc) surely made the Sadducees angrey...His refusal to show the "sign" of his being haMeshiach was certainly enough to convict him (cf. Deut. 18:15-22). And the Jew's who said, "We have no king but Caesar!" tells you which Jews were in the crowd...no observant Pharisee would have said such a thing. Many Jews in fact died martyr's deaths rather than say that... ...one of the interesting parts of this story was Barrabbas, the one who was released. Some texts have him named as "Jesus Barabbas", which is Aramaic for "Jesus son of G-d"."

I can not seem to find the answer to why...if Jesus was a rabbi teaching the Torah...the Jews put him to death on the cross. Please explain more clearly.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Lee,

Being hateful again are you?? I am NOT in the least surprised by the techniques. Many in this day and age try to label men as unloving and hateful when they are bold with the Word of God and do not compromise. This of course comes from complete ignorance. Those doing the labeling believe it will give them a hand up if they think they can show another to be unchristian in attitude. Again this thinking comes from a lack of Biblical knowledge concerning what our responsibility as a Christian is in dealing with false teachers and their false doctrines.

Lee, you absolutely should not soften up a bit"! More loving? Can you be anymore loving than you have been in trying to refute the false teachings that come into the forum considering the danger and destruction these false teaching and teachers can cause? I have met few men with such a love for the truth as you have!

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Mr. Cecil:

You have stared this thread and you say the following:

I agree that "restoring the faith delivered to the saints" is a worthy endeavor...however, I have searched for exactly what that faith was, and how best to recover it.

From what I have read so far of your comments in this post as well as the previous thread I am convinced that you have no interest in the restoration of the faith delivered to the saints. Rather it appears that you are instead interested in fabricating a faith that was developed over time. For it is evident that you do not believe that the faith was once for all DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS (Jude 3). Instead you appear to believe that a faith was developed solely by men from the rabbinical thoughts current in the time of Christ with no help whatsoever from God in the matter. While we on the other hand, believe that THE FAITH was Once for all DELIVERED to the saints by God through Christ who spoke through the Holy Spirit in the apostles. And that He confirmed that word from which the faith comes by signs, wonders, manifold powers and gifts of the Holy Spirit according to his will. For we are told, God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers through the prophets hath in the last days spoken unto us through His Son whom he hath made the heir of all things and by whom also he MADE THE WORLDS. (Heb. 1:1). This is most assuredly not the faith that you seek to restore and therefore it is no wonder that you are having trouble in your search for exactly what that faith was for you are looking in the wrong place and wonder why you have not found it. It is therefore very unlikely that you will ever be able to recover it since you do not know where to look and you apparently have absolutely no idea what it looks like. And therefore are not likely to recognize it were it to jump up and bite your nose!

Then you tell us:

I personally do not feel that theology is the correct vehicle for this job.

No just how would you know what is the correct vehicle for the Job when you do not even know what you are looking for and what it may look like? But I remind you here that we have not asked you to use theology as a vehicle for finding the faith. But we are not surprised that you find theology a poor vehicle for such a task. For theology simply means the study of God. Since you have already ruled out the possibility that God delivered the faith and miraculously confirmed it. And since you are proceeding with the preconceived notion that man instead developed it of his own device from rabbinical thought current at the time of Christ, it is very unlikely that you will ever determine what that faith was and certain that you will never recover it.

In another thread, I was asked, "By the way, much of your argument is based on the hatred of "SOME" early Christians towards the Jews. Historical honesty demands that you point out this was not the case in general"

Yes Brother Danny did ask you a very good question there, now didnt he? So why do you not answer him?

Then you claim that you want to talk about the Christians historical honesty as follows:

I wish to talk about the Christian's "historical honesty"...

The problem is that you say you want to talk about that and then proceed to talk about everything but that subject. So we are still waiting upon you to discuss the Christians Historical honesty. We will reserve our comments about that until you actually talk about it.

Then you tell us that Mr. Julius Wellhausen developed a theory as follows:

In the late nineteenth century, Julius Wellhausen, a German scholar, helped develop a theory about the Old Testament scriptures which had a tremendous impact on the way the Bible was interpreted.

Well this is hardly shattering news to us! Ha! For we are well aware of his absurd theory which he failed miserably to prove to be factual in the least. And I can assure you that his theory has absolutely no effect upon how we Christians interpret the scriptures. It has had its effect upon those who claim to be Christians but are nothing more than infidels in disguise but it has had no impact whatsoever upon genuine Christians.

Then you proceed to tell us how Mr. Wellhausen developed theory:

 Relying only on the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Wellhausen deduced from literary analysis that the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses at all, but assembled from the work of many people from different eras, starting from the time of king David and going well on into the Second Temple period.

Now it is interesting to note just here that you tell us that Mr. Wellhausen deduced from literary analysis that the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses at all. Yet you do not tell us just how he reached that conclusion from his literary analysis. I suppose that you expect us to believe this because some German scholar deduced it. Let us hear some of the facts from which he deduced such absolute nonsense, Mr. Cecil! We will not believe Mr. Wellhausen any more than we will believe you unless you can give us the EVIDENCE from which he reached his conclusions. Merely telling us that Mr. Wellhausen deduce this is hardly sufficient for us to reach a similar conclusion. In fact the evidence that Moses is the author of the first five books of the Old Testament is overwhelming. And we will be glad to take the time to present that evidence as soon as you give us Mr. Wellhausens evidence so that our readers side by side can judge both of these conclusions. Are you willing to compare these Mr. Cecil?

This teaching of textual analysis, known as "higher criticism", was hailed as the most objective and scientific view of the Old Testament to date, and was to hold sway over most of the serious biblical studies well into the twentieth century, and still has considerable influence today.

Now all of this hailing proves nothing Mr. Cecil. Let us hear the evidence and we will decide after hearing it whether we too will hail this nonsense as the most objective and scientific view of the Old Testament to date. In fact I do think you are being a bit dishonest to imply that it was not severely criticized during this time many able and scholarly men. Then you claim that it held sway over most of the serious biblical studies well into the 20th century. But who decides what is a serious biblical study? But you do not prove this to be true. This entire statement is better as an advertisement for Mr. Wellhausens books that as evidence to support your claim that the Bible is unreliable, now isnt it? Even if this theory holds considerable influence today, which you have not proven to be the truth, it proves nothing about the truthfulness of the theory. There was a time when the theory that the earth was flat held considerable sway but the earth was round even when this theory held such considerable sway! Even now, the theory of evolution holds considerable sway but such does not prove it to be the truth in the least. It is still a theory for which no one has even given enough evidence to show that it is suitable to even be a mere respectable hypothesis much less a serious scientific theory. But it holds considerable sway but we Christians are not convinced by considerable sway, Mr. Cecil. We will be convinced only by CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, which we still wait for you to even attempt to present.

Then you tell us:

What the Christian Theologians deduced from this teaching was that the first five books of the Bible were not actually written by Moses.

Now Mr. Cecil, you have already told us that you personally do not feel that theology is the correct vehicle for this job. Yet here you here trying to convince us by something that you claim Christian Theologians deduced. Now either you believe that theology can do the job or you dont. Which is it? You do not however tell us which Christian Theologians you are talking about and you do not prove that they are in fact Christian. You assume that we will just accept what you say. But Mr. Cecil, in this forum everything that you say will come under intense scrutiny and you just cannot get by with assumptions and assertions. You must give evidence. The Christians in this forum take the admonition to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good very seriously. So enough of these mere assertions without proof and these advertisements for men like Wellhausen and these unknowns and so-called Christian Theologians. Give us evidence that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible and let us examine that evidence and see if it will withstand scrutiny!

But, still without having offered one shred of evidence to support you unfounded affirmations you continue with yet another one:

 Also, many of the legalistic and religious parts of the Law were actually written by priests during the second Temple era (around 400- 500 B.C.E.).

Well, Mr. Cecil we have herd the affirmation of your numerous propositions but we have not yet read of a single FACT that you would offer to prove your above statement. Where is the evidence that even suggest that the legalistic and religious parts of the Law we actually written by priest during the Temple Era (400-500 B. C. E.). The fact is that you just do not offer any. You want us to believe it because some unknown so-called Christian Theologians have reached that conclusion. That is not enough for us Mr. Cecil. We want to review the evidence for our selves and decide if it has any true merit.

Then you again tell us that they meaning, it seems, these unknown so-called Christian Theologians reached a conclusion:

 They concluded that Judaism was a "developed" religion which had evolved over the centuries. and the Christian theologians concluded that Judaism was not as authoritative as the New Testament since it was the work of Jewish priests and not the true "Word of God".

Well, Mr. Cecil, no wonder you think that theology is conducive to restoring the faith once delivered. If this is what you consider acceptable theology I am certain that you are right! But this is not Christian theology Mr. Cecil. This is the theology of those who are infidels like you but that do not have the courage to admit it and they hide behind a false cloak. I know of no genuine Christian that holds such a ridiculous view of the scriptures. Here again you mention that these Christian Theologians believed that Judaism was a developed religion. So there we go with that word developed again. But you said that you wanted to restore the faith delivered to the saints. If you do then you will have to get away from this absurd theological evolutionary theory that the faith developed. For Even genuine Biblical Judaism was a delivered faith rather than a developed religion. It was delivered to Moses rather than developed by the priest. But for now I only have time to say that you offer no evidence that this theory is true. You seem to expect us to believe it simply because some unknown so-called Christian Theologians reached this conclusion.

Then you tell us:

This school of thought has greatly influenced Christianity on the way it looked at and thought about the religion of Judaism over the past one hundred years. It was a clear victory for positivism, and the "higher criticism" became the new scientific weapon for the scholarly Christian community.

Just hear you claim victory a bit too early! Ha! This battle is far from over and will not be over until Christ returns and then you will see just who is victorious. I can assure all that those who assert such nonsense without even attempting to find evidence to support it will be found among the victors. But if you believe this theory we would be glad to listen and consider your evidence. But as all can see you offer nothing but mere assertions without fact or evidence to support them.

Yes, it is true here that you claim a victory before the battle has been fought. We are not interested in a victory you claim for the scholarly Christian Community. We are interested in what evidence you might have to support your assertions. Even if this nonsense has been victorious among so scholarly community it will not help you be victorious in this thread. Why dont you bring some of those glorious victorious arguments that they made in this glorious battle that they won for the scientific Christian community into this forum? And we will see if those same arguments will win you a victory among genuine Christians who are not mere theologians. Or is it possible that you think that we are just too ignorant to even discuss these great victorious arguments? Ha!

So far, Mr. Cecil, we find you doing nothing but making assertions without prove and claiming victory for your side hoping that we will just capitulate as if the battle has been won why fight! Ha! You are woefully mistaken. We are prepared and able to fight this nonsense. And remember the warning, Let not him that putteth on his armor boast as he that taketh it off!

For Christ and my Brethren who love Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Brother John:

You have said:

The wise and honored Rabbi Gamaliel once said something very profound, which is recorded in the New Testament book of Acts: "Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men, you will only find yourselves fighting against God." I submit to you that Christianity has passed Rabbi Gamaliel's test, it has most certainly not failed, and therefore you are also found to be fighting against God.

I just wanted to say to you, AMEN AND AMEN! Rabbi Gamaliel proved to have not only been wise but correct. Christianity could never have survived if it were nothing more than a humanly developed religion from the rabbinical thought current in Palestine in the time of Christ and the apostles. The fact of it did not fail is proof that it was from God and those who oppose it find themselves fighting against God. I have never seen or heard or read of a human being winning such a battle, have you?

Christianity is a divinely delivered faith and it needed no development and has therefore no human origin.

May our Lord abundantly bless you Brother John. I also liked your initial article that started all of this discussion.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Well, I just got off work, and lookie at all the posts! My goodness...
...Let's see...where to begin? hmmm....

Danny:No, I don't make the Rules. G-d makes the Rules. 613 of them, in fact...but for us non-Jews, only Seven. No idolatry, no blasphemy, no murder, no theft, no illicit sex, no blood (cruelty to animals), and to set up courts of justice in every society. That's it. We have no commandment to keep the Sabbath, nor to tithe, nor to offer sacrifices...Just a simple moral code. What's so hard about that? Deut. 13:1 (12:32 in the KJV): "The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it". Now, that's pretty easy and straight- forward to me. Don't change G-d's rules. G-d gave man the Torah; don't put words in G-d's mouth, don't change G-d's rules to fit your theology, and don't pick and choose what you want to believe. These were the rules Jesus lived by, and taught. If the Torah was good enough for Jesus, why shouldn't it be good enough for you? Why add to it? As far as being the "messiah" of Biblical criticism, I never claimed to be that. Don't put words in my mouth. I have asked some very relevant questions. I simply look for some resonable answers...

John: As I have pointed out before: The sect that Rabbi Gamaliel spoke of is long gone. The Observant Jews who followed Jesus died out with the Ebionites. The religion that we know as Christianity has little, if any, similarity to that sect. Remember: The apostles, and the other Jews of the "church" in the early chapters of Acts were observant (read: Orthodox) Jews. They kept the Law. Yes, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, just as 100 years after Jesus' death Rabbi Akiva belived Bar Kochba was the Messiah...
...so, you actually think the early apostles understood the theolgical concepts that were developed over the next several centuries? Please. They were JEWS. Observant, Law-keeping, Torah- abiding JEWS. NOT "Christians". Yes, I know that in Antioch they were refered to as "Christians". Big deal. Jews who follow Rabbi Schneerson are called "Lubovitchers". Same thing.

D.Lee: The Jews did not put Jesus to death. The Romans did. Read your NT again....

E.Lee: Again, you need to chill. If you think that I support the Graf/Wellhausen theory, think again. And if you are so clueless as to the part the Graf/Wellhausen theory has played in Biblical scholarship over the last 100 years, you are more ignorant than I thought. There seem to be many fellows in here who have a pretty good grasp of theology. Perhaps they can enlighten you. As far as Christianity being a "divinely delivered faith"; you've got to be kidding. Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity. He was a Jew who kept the Torah. If he came back tomorrow, he'd be an orthodox Jew, not a Christian. Jesus' teachings were the same as the other Jewish rabbis of his day. You want examples? Sure. Just ask.

Well, Mr. Cecil we have herd the affirmation of your numerous propositions but we have not yet read of a single FACT that you would offer to prove your above statement

Well, if you want some facts of misinterpretation due to the Christian theologian's lack of Torah knowledge, let's look at the theological explanation of Matthew 12:1-8, which theologians have traditionally used to show that Jesus did away with the observance of the Sabbath as required in the Torah. Now, pay attention, F. Lee. You might just learn something...
... Jesus and his disciples were traveling through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and were hungry and picked some of the grain and ate it, an act which is one of the 39 prohibitions of work which a Jew cannot do on the Sabbath (not to mention that they were stealing someone else's grain). When the Pharisees pointed this out to Jesus, he defended his actions by telling them the story from I Samuel 21:1-6 where David ate the showbread which was only to be eaten by the Kohanim, and then Jesus told the Pharisees: I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice", you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. The theological interpretation of this is that Jesus, who was God, nullified the ordinance of work on the Sabbath since one greater than the temple is here and the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

First of all, the Greek word which is translated one in the verse one greater than the temple is here is in the neuter tense (The Greek reads mezon not mezoV), so it should read something greater than the temple is here. This literal translation alters the meaning of the text, so that there is something greater than the temple, not someone. What is the thing that is greater than the temple? To find the answer, we must go back to the Talmud, and the interpretation of the Torah which came about during the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Greeks, who had come up with a clever scheme to attack the Jews on the Sabbath when they would not fight back. In the story which Jesus told to defend his actions, David was on the run from Saul, who was trying to have David killed. David was on the run and hungry, so the priest Ahimelech gave David the showbread to eat. According to Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus had just finished telling the cities which he had been teaching in, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, that they were all going to hell, which was not the way to make friends and influence people. The verse I desire mercy, not sacrifice from Hosea 6:6 was what Jesus was talking about; mercy was the thing that was greater than the temple. Jesus was not doing away with the Sabbath at all; he was merely giving an explanation to why he and his disciples were violating the Sabbath ordinance against working in a garden. It was simply a case of a Jewish Rabbi giving his interpretation of the Torah, and not trying to abrogate the Law of the Torah. As a matter of fact, this very argument comes up in the Talmud, that all of the commands of the Torah (With the exceptions of idolatry, murder, and incest: Sanhedren 74a), including stealing and violating the Sabbath, can be laid aside in times of extreme personal danger. And what example from Scripture does the Talmud use for this ruling? None other than the story of David eating the showbread when he was on the run from Saul!(Menahot 96a) However, for Christian theologians to show that Jesus was giving a Talmudic explanation for violating the Sabbath Laws would totally undermine the highly important theological teaching of Jesus "doing away with the Law" which is supported by the "proof text" of Matthew 12:1-8. Even Jesus saying the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath was, in fact, a Pharisee maxim! (cf. Yoma 85b). This in itself shows Jesus' familiarity with the Oral Law, and that, far from doing away with the Torah, Jesus was in fact using his expertise in the Oral Law to prove his point!

We will be convinced only by CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, which we still wait for you to even attempt to present.
....ok. Here's some more CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE for you.

Now let us go over one of the best known and most important passages in the New Testament; the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Of the two very dissimilar versions of the Virgin Birth recorded in the New Testament, I will focus on the rendition in Matthew, for it contains the story of how Joseph was wanting to divorce Mary after finding her pregnant. To the church, it seemed that the only plausible explanation for Joseph wanting to divorce Mary was that he found her to be pregnant before they were married. The Biblical narrative of Matthew 1:17-20 follows:

17)Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ. 18)This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19)Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20)But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife..." (Matthew 1:17-20, NIV version).

Without the rabbinic exegesis, the gentile Christians had to rely on their own reasoning to provide answers to the text, which illustrates the problems of interpreting the text outside the context of Judaic scholarship. The first problem I want to go over are the forced interpretations of the virgin birth as well as the errors in the genealogy of Jesus found in Matt. 1:16 which does not agree with the genealogy found in I Chronicles 3:10-16. A quick check shows there were four kings left out: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim. Except for the excuse of shoddy scholarship, the only other plausible explanation is that these names were deliberately excluded so that by leaving out a few kings here and there could the editors come up with an even fourteen generations. Please explain these omissions, F. Lee.

The next problem is the verse [h]is mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. The Greek word for pledged to be married is mnhsteuqeishV, which means (literally) to give a souvenir, or engagement present. This is different from the word used for espouse in 2 Cor.11:2, which is hrmosamhn, or to betroth. According to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 21a), a woman must be married with a kesubah, which is a document which provides for a marriage settlement, among other things (Zlotowitz, 1986). A more viable interpretation of verse 18 would be that Mary was Joseph's legal wife, not his espoused wife-to-be, for in the next verse, it states very clearly that Joseph was Mary's husband, and they are referred to as husband and wife throughout the rest of the Gospel. Being God- fearing, observant Jews, they would not be allowed to be alone and certainly not be allowed to travel together if they had only been engaged, and since there is no mention of their being married between verses 18 and 19, it is only logical to assume that they were married from the beginning. Of course, there is no way to prove this one way or the other beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I believe that the evidence is certainly in my favor, especially with what follows next.

The verb in verse 18, sunelqein, means "come together". It is only used to denote "coming together" as in marriage once; and that is in this passage in Matthew. In the other places in the New Testament where this word occurs, such as in Luke 23:55 or Acts 2:6, it has the meaning of "accompanying", not "marrying" or "cohabiting". The word used for "take" in verse 20, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, which in Greek is paralabein, and this means "to take". In all other uses of this word, such as Luke 9:28, Jesus...took Peter, John, and James with him. Or in Matthew 18:16, take one or two others along. Nowhere else does it take on the connotation of "to marry" as it does in Matthew 1:20. In order to make sure the interpretation of the word paralabein as "to marry" is clear, words have been added to the English text which are not in the original Greek:

...fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife...[KJV]
...do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife...[NASV]
...do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife...[NIV]


This addition of excess words which do not belong in the text occurs again in verse 24, again with the word paralabein, where the text literally reads as simply: take Mary your wife [literally "take Mary along with you"]. Explain please, F. Lee.

Now we are at a critical point. Textual analysis is certainly important, but you cannot simply look at this on that level, for you must go beyond the simple analysis of the text. You must give an explanation, an interpretation of the events described to give it meaning. For that, we turn to the Talmud.

In the Talmud (Ketubbot 9b) it tells of the tradition, which began in the time of David, of married men going off to war, or on a dangerous journey, and would secretly give their wives papers for divorce. Since the Law clearly says that a woman whose husband had no witnesses to his death cannot remarry, she could hold onto these papers until she is sure that her husband is dead, then produce them and obtain a divorce. This is what Joseph wanted to do and why the account in Matthew calls him "righteous". Joseph wanted to make sure that, in the event of his death, his wife could remarry and be provided for.

Where and why Joseph was going can be explained in this context. There are three festivals every year which all Jewish males were required to travel to Jerusalem to celebrate. Joseph, being "a righteous man", which could only mean observant, would of course keep the Law and go. Being a descendant of David, it is not illogical that he would head for the City of David, Bethlehem (which was only six miles from Jerusalem) and where he probably had relatives. The reason he was fearful of his safety is easily explained also; about the time of Jesus' birth, there were certain Jews who were trying to rid themselves of Roman rule. Judas the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee (Jones, 1983) were associated with the Zealots, and at this time were fighting against the Romans using guerrilla warfare tactics and ambushing Roman soldiers. The result of this was that there were literally hundreds of Jewish men who were being crucified along the roads of Galilee by the vengeful Romans. Joseph feared that the Romans might find him at the wrong place at the wrong time and nail him to a tree.

The narrative of Matthew 1:18-20, in light of the knowledge of the Talmud, would go like this: Before Yosef and his wife Miriam went on a journey together, she became pregnant. Because of her pregnancy, and of the volatile situation in Galilee, Yoseph decided to go alone, and in case he did not return, he privately gave Miriam papers for divorce as was the custom when a husband was forced to make a dangerous journey or go off to war. This was to assure that, in case of the lack of any witnesses to his death, Miriam could remarry and be taken care of. Before Yosef left, however, an angel spoke to him in a dream and told him that it was safe to take his wife with him on the journey. I believe this interpretation superior to the traditional Christian interpretation, for it explains Matthew 1:17-20 within the religious and cultural context of the people and events being described, and better represents the traditions of the Jewish people of Galilee during the late second Temple era.

Although this does not directly deal with the issue of the Virgin Birth, it does pose other important questions. Christians have deliberately added words simply to make the text conform to theological dogma, then have used these very same corrupted passages to prove that their dogma is Biblically correct. It is a point worth repeating, for unless you understand that this is not just an isolated incident but occurs throughout the entire New Testament, you will fail to break through the theological barrier that Christians have erected around the teachings of Jesus and Paul. The typical Christian response to this argument would be to ignore Matthew and to point out that the version in Luke is more suited to theological dogma, or to put it another way, Christians will try to deflect the issue by simply dodging the problem and going to another text. This seems to be the method of F. Lee and a few others in here. You wanted hard evidence? I have given it. Now, explain the problems with the texts. Why were they changed? Why were they mis-translated? If this is "Holy Scripture", why edit it? I want answers, not just a lot of hot air.

Here endeth the lesson....

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Sigh....sorry about the HTML tag agian. It's late, and I'm beat. See you all tomorrow, I'm sure...heh.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

Alan,

The gospels we have received have been passsed down by faithful witnesses, who knew Jesus (Matthew and John) or who worked closely with those who knew Jesus and listened to their teachigns (Luke and Mark.)

Jesus Barabas, you say, is Aramaic for 'son of God.' How do you get that 'Barabas' means 'son of God.' I don't know Aramaic, but I would think that 'Abas' is 'Abba'- father, with a Greek 's' ending since it was recorded in Greek in the New Testament.

Jesus did teach to pray 'Our Father,' but it is a big stretch to go from that to the idea that 'bar-Abas' in the Jewish mind would mean 'son of God.' Jesus talked alot about the Father. That doesn't mean that the idea of God has the Father, especially one's Father personally was a common concept at the time.

Yeshua may well have been a fairly common name back then as well. If we are to learn anything about Jesus Barabas name, there may be a spiritual lesson. The Bible is full of such spiritual lesons throughout the Old and New Testaments.

Peter taught that through Christ men could be justified of through all they could not be justified of through the Law of Moses. The Law did not take care of the problem of sin as Christ has now taken care of it. All who are in Chirst, whether Jew or Gentile, are justified through Christ, not by the works of the Law.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2000

The gospels we have received have been passsed down by faithful witnesses, who knew Jesus (Matthew and John) or who worked closely with those who knew Jesus and listened to their teachigns (Luke and Mark.)

Actually, the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John" were tacked on in the second century. We truly don't know who wrote the Gospels. We do know that the writer of 1John wrote the Gospel John (because of the Greek textual similarities). But that in itself is a problem: the entire Gospel of John is paraphrased; even the words of Jesus. John is, therefore, the least accurate of the Gospels when it comes to quoting Jesus. It has Jesus sounding like some second-rate Greek philosopher, and not as a Jewish rabbi as do the synoptics.

Jesus Barabas, you say, is Aramaic for 'son of God.' How do you get that 'Barabas' means 'son of God.' I don't know Aramaic, but I would think that 'Abas' is 'Abba'- father, with a Greek 's' ending since it was recorded in Greek in the New Testament.

Bar is Aramaic for "Son of" (as Ben is the Hebrew equivilant). Abba=Father.

. Peter taught that through Christ men could be justified of through all they could not be justified of through the Law of Moses. The Law did not take care of the problem of sin as Christ has now taken care of it. All who are in Chirst, whether Jew or Gentile, are justified through Christ, not by the works of the Law.

Well, that's not what Jesus said, nor any other rabbi of his time, or after. Matthew 7:21-23;
21. Not everyone saying to me, Lord, lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one doing the will of my Father in heaven.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name expel demons, and in your name do many mighty works?
23. And then I will say to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you working without Torah .
working without Torah
The Greek here at the end of verse 23...ergazomenoi thn anomian literally means to work against the Jewish Law. It is not always translated as such; in the KJV, it is "iniquity" and in the NIV it is "you evildoers". Yet, when we look at verses 21-23, there is a powerful message here. Christian theology teaches that you have to "believe in Jesus" to be saved; here, Jesus is saying that, even if you believe in him, if you do not keep the Torah, you will be turned away at the gates of the World to Come. Theologians trot out proof verses such as John 14:6 to back up their theology, yet ignore verses such as Matthew 7:23 which oppose their theological interpretations. Both verses are quotes from Jesus. Christians want to give the quote from John, as well as the other proof texts which bolster their theological claims, more authority, yet what Jesus says in Matthew 7:23 agrees with what the other Rabbis of the time taught: Rabbi Hillel said "One who has gained himself Torah knowledge has gained himself life in the World to Come" (Pirke Avot 1:8). Christianity removed Jesus from the context of Judaism, from who he was and what he was teaching. They portrayed the Judaism of his era as a religion bogged down in a nit-picking legalism, which as we can see from the many examples above, was an inaccurate portrayal.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2000

Alan,

Of course the Jews put Jesus to death! And you say that I need to read the N. T. again. You need to read Acts 2. Here are some key verses for you

Acts 2:5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

Acts 2:22-23 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Also, I know it may be difficult, what with several people named Lee posting here on the forum, but just so you know there is an E. Lee, D. Lee, and a plain old Lee. There is no F. Lee.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2000

Deuteronomy 13:1-5

1: If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
2: and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
3: you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The L-RD your G-d is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
4: It is the L-RD your G-d you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
5: That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the L-RD your G-d, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the L-RD your G-d commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

Now, let's look at what the Torah says.
Deuteronomy 13:
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
Now, G-d tells Israel that if any prophet appears, no matter what he says or does, even if he preforms miracles, one should be wary...
2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
So, if this same prophet tries to get Israel, i.e., the Jews, to disobey the Torah....
3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The L-RD your G-d is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Then you know that G-d is simply testing you.
4 It is the L-RD your G-d you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey Him; serve Him and hold fast to Him.
So, G-d tells Israel to only follow G-d's commandments in the Torah, not some miracle-worker.
5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the L-RD your G-d, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the L-RD your G-d commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
Now, are you trying to tell me G-d is a liar? That G-d doesn't keep His promises? Heaven forbid.....

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2000

Your logic is so full of holes I could drive a truck through it (Where did you learn logic? Sesame Street?), but let me just point out the biggest, most glaring holes.

First, Deut. 13:2 says, "and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,'" Now, unless you are trying to make out the Torah to be G-d, you are being disingenuous again. The passage says that the dreamer will cause you to follow after other gods. It says nothing of Torah.

Second, verse 4 says, "It is the L-RD your G-d you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey Him; serve Him and hold fast to Him." You blow the logic test on this verse on two counts. For one, if Jesus were who he claimed, namely, the "I AM," then it is him you must revere, and it is him you are turning your back on. And for another, Israel had long ago broken this commandment.

In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet speaks these words: "The time is coming," declares the L-RD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers 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, " declares the L-RD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the L-RD. "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 a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, `Know the L-RD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the L-RD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (31:31-34).

Let me note several points Jeremiah makes:

1. "I will make a new covenant" The Torah is the covenant G-d made with Israel through Moshe in the wilderness. But Jeremiah says that a time will come when G-d will make a NEW covenant, other than the Torah. Why?
2. "because they broke my covenant"! G-d is not a liar. G-d keeps His promises. But G-d did not abrogate His covenant. All of Israel abandoned G-d's covenant. And although they made a pretense of coming back and serving Him through that covenant, they were as the prophets had fortold, worshiping Him with their lips but their hearts were far from him, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men (the oral law which later became the Talmud).
3. This covenant was to be a covenant unlike the Torah ... As it is written elsewhere, it would not be a covenant written on tablets of stone, but it was to be a covenant with the heart of each individual believer.
4. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." It was to be a covenant which would also, unlike Torah, forgive sins rather than merely cover over them.

This was the New Covenant that was prophesied to come, the new Torah that was to replace the old Torah which was broken not by G-d but by Israel, the Covenant that Jesus ratified in his own blood. Jesus himself in the Sermon on the Mount showed point by point how this Torah supplanted the old Torah with something greater. (Thou shalt not kill? I [Jesus] say you shall not even be angry without cause. Thou shalt not commit adultery? I say you shall not even lust in your own thoughts. Do not bear false witness? I say do not swear at all!) The Book of Hebrews goes into even greater detail about how the New Covenant, the New Torah, is better than the Old. The New Covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises!

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2000

Alan,

You have stated, "I certainly know the NT is NOT inspired by G-d; it is a man-made work. Too many hands over the centuries have corrupted the text...as for Jesus, I believe what he taught."

First, how can you believe what Jesus taught and not believe the NT?

Second, you say that you do not believe the NT and it has been corrupted because too many hands have corrupted the text... yet you have also said, "I get my information from sources such as the Talmud." And it seems that you believe the Torah... have not these seen more "human" hands than the NT?

How can you KNOW the NT is not inspired and at the same time KNOW everything else you have said from the Torah and Talmud is true?

John: thank you for sharing from Jeremiah... I believe it was also in Jeremiah that God said He "divorced" Israel because they did not keep His ways... it seems to me that God is "remarried" and we (the Church, Christians, yes even Gentiles) are the bride of the Bridegroom (Jesus) and as John pointed out from Jeremiah... it is a whole new covenant.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2000

Even gentiles, Marc ... but even Jews! As Paul wrote, the covenant was delivered to the Jew first, and after to the Goyim (gentiles).

You say, Alan, that you believe Jesus' words. When Peter claimed Jesus to be the promised Messiah, this same Jesus tells Peter that God himself had revealed that to Peter. If God himself refers to Jesus as the Messiah, by Jesus' own words, which you claim to believe, who are you to argue he cannot be called that?

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2000

Out of respect for Alan, I began using his convention of G-d and L-rd. This is the way an observing Jew writes the words Lord and God, as a way of not breaking the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain. But since

1. Alan has shown little respect for us or our Scripture in this forum thus far,
2. This form of writing only serves to display the hypersensitive legalism that has characterized Judaism from Jesus' day to the present, the very thing Jesus most railed about,
3. I have received emails from several in the forum saying that it was confusing to them, and
4. It is exceedingly difficult to type <nobr>G-d</nobr> and <nobr>L-rd</nobr> all the time,

I am forthwith going to cease using that convention.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2000

Alan,

I wrote, Jesus Barabas, you say, is Aramaic for 'son of God.' How do you get that 'Barabas' means 'son of God.' I don't know Aramaic, but I would think that 'Abas' is 'Abba'- father, with a Greek 's' ending since it was recorded in Greek in the New Testament.

You responded, >>> Bar is Aramaic for "Son of" (as Ben is the Hebrew equivilant). Abba=Father.<<<

Do you have any evidence that 'son of the father' to the non-Christian Jewish mind of the first century, would have inferred the meaning 'Son of God?' I find this very unlikely. Messiach told us to pray to God as 'Our Father.' 'Son of the Father' could have brought up the idea of 'Son of God' for the early Christians, but I doubt the typical non-Christian Aramaic person would have made such a conncction.

In the Old Testament, we find that people's naems are significant. Sometimes, their names are similar to their character, to the opposite of it. We find the same thing in the Old Testament.

Joseph in Genesis is a type of the Suffering Servant. He suffers and is raised up to a position of power beside the king, and saves his people. Gentiles obeyed him, and the nations came to him. Jesus, during his life, was referred to as the 'Son of Joseph.' But he was also the Son of David. He is both the Suffering Servant, and the Victorious Messiah. Zechariah predicts Israelites looking on Him whom they have pierced.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2000

Well, let's see. Lots of posts to answer. I'll try to be brief...

Your logic is so full of holes I could drive a truck through it (Where did you learn logic? Sesame Street?)

Sorry. I learned the same logic Jesus did. I don't use theology to interpret, remember? How many times do I have to repeat that?

Alan.....where in the world....please cite specific verses (not Rabbinic traditions....which is what got the Jews in trouble with Jesus)......that talk about "the blood" issue being "cruelty to animals."

Jesus used the Talmud. Jesus used "rabbinic traditions". If the Talmud and rabbinic traditions were good enough for Jesus, they should be good enough for you.

Out of respect for Alan, I began using his convention of G-d and L- rd...

Why do it out of respect for me? I do it out of respect for G-d. I don't ask you to respect me (big deal, you don't anyway).

Now..I have given you several examples of problems with the text. No one has answered. You either: 1. Refuse to answer. 2. Are unable to answer. I have given you an example of Jesus teaching from the Talmud, yet you still persist in your foolish beliefs that Jesus did not use rabbinic logic. Why? You seem to have a blatent disregard for facts...

-- Anonymous, September 29, 2000

Jesus did not use the Talmud, because the Talmud hadn't even been created yet! The only thing that was in effect at that time was the rabbinical oral teachings from which the Talmud later sprung, which Jesus hated and spoke against when he said they worshipped God in vain with their lips but their hearts were far from him, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. The Talmud and rabbinic traditions were not good enough for Jesus. They were in fact antithetical to his teachings. Our "foolish beliefs" are based on Jesus' own words, which you claim to respect. But just as the Jews of old, you pay him lipservice but you instead teach the opposite.

Your Sesame Street logic is to simply assert something and expect us to accept it as fact, without any supporting evidence. This forum operates like a court of law. If you have a position to put forward, we expect ample supporting evidence. You have not shown one shred of evidence for any of the preposterous statements you have put forward so far, you merely assert that they are so and expect us to accept your position without proof. We have amply, and over and over, answered your assertions with stone cold logic and evidence. We have asked you questions you have refused to answer or avoided altogether by switching threads. It is you who has a blatant disregard for the facts, as we present them to you time and time again.

If you believe we are so foolish (for the teaching of the cross is, to those who are perishing, foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God), why do you persist in our forum? Perhaps it is because your email address is very appropriate: Puck, Shakespeare's mischevious troublemaking sprite?

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

Quote for me where it says: "G-d is Three, not One!" or "The Sabbath has been changed to the first day of the week!"

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

Jesus changed several of the Ten Commandments at the Sermon on the Mount, so it is not surprising that the Ten Commandments could be changed. He was delivering a New Covenant and the old was no longer in effect. The miraculous resurrection of the self-proclaimed "Lord of the Sabbath" explains the reason the early Christians began to meet on the "Lord's Day" rather than on the Old Covenant's sabbath.

As for God, The Lord our God, the Lord is One! But one does not have to go to Jesus' teachings to show the New Testament concept that within the One God exist three Persons. The groundwork of that selfsame revelation is buried within the Tanach and the Torah itself!

The first thing we have to keep in mind, of course, is that God makes it very clear there is only one God. I have counted at least 22 separate statements by God to that effect in the Old Testament. No Christian will deny that fact. Yet in the Old Testament we also find some "things that make us go hmmmmm...", as Arsenio used to say.

For instance, even though God makes it perfectly clear that there is only one God, the very name for "God" in the Old Testament, Elohim, is plural. And God uses such peculiar phrases as, "And God said, let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26), "the man is become as one of us" (Genesis 3:22), "Let us go down" (Genesis 11:7), and "Whom shall I send, and who shall go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8).

In Genesis 19, we find a curious event. Abraham is met by three persons, whom Abraham immediately recognizes as supernatural beings (perhaps they were wearing white robes?). Abraham addresses at least one of them as the LORD, Jehovah God. The other two beings fade out of the picture as Abraham discusses with the LORD about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Then in verse 24, while Jehovah is still standing with Abraham, we find this curious statement: "The LORD (Jehovah, with Abraham, remember?) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven."

[continued ...]

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

Even Deuteronomy 6:4, the "Shema", the statement of faith of Israel, leaves room for a God who is tri-personal. "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!" There are two words for "one" in the Hebrew language, one being an absolute one, and the other being a composite, such as "one" cluster of grapes. Guess which word was used here? You guessed it, the word meaning a composite unity. This same word is used in Genesis 2:24 when God says that the man and woman are to become "one" flesh.

There are numerous places where God speaks of himself in the third person, such as "I will strengthen them in the LORD, and they shall walk up and down in his name, saith the LORD" (Zechariah 10:12). "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn him, as one mourneth for his only son" (Zechariah 12:10).

There are also other numerous places in the Old Testament where one of the Persons of the Godhead speaks to another, or about another. One of them Jesus pointed out, namely, "The Lord said to my Lord" (Ps 110:1); "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God" (Isa 44:6 - One Jehovah God yet at least two Persons); [God speaking:] "the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me" (Isa 48:16 - I count three Persons).

Then finally we have the curious statements in the Old Testament where somehow God will be born (Micah 7:14), and be pierced (Zechariah 12:10) and mourned over. This is why Paul wrote, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16).

So we do not have to quote for you where this teaching of Jesus is. Jesus didn't have to teach something which had already been taught (and the Jews missed).

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

Alan,

You say you are being as straightforward as you can be. Yet you have dodged numerous questions put to you (such as "Why did the Jews, at the hands of the Romans, put to death a 'Rabbi' who simply enforced the Torah?" and "Please cite specific verses that talk about 'the blood' issue being 'cruelty to animals.'" - Danny Gabbard), and you have made many assertions which are deceitful on the face of them, such as Paul never claimed to be inspired, Peter never considered Paul's writings as Scripture, the early Church never considered these writings from scripture, Jesus taught from the Talmud, the New Testament is corrupted, over and over you make these bold and absurd assertions without any proof whatsoever, in the face of reams of facts and evidence that say otherwise.

What's really funny is that you claim that the New Testament is just a bunch of manmade documents based on religious teaching of the time, without any proof to your allegations (and we can quote from volumes of both textual and archaeological scholars who prove otherwise), and hold up the Torah as the Word of God, and then you bring up this Wellhausen guy, who basically blows holes all through the Torah and the Tanakh as being inspired, to somehow bolster your claim. As the Jews say, "Go figure."

I don't think you are being as straightforward as you can be. I think you are being as evasive as you can be, as deceitful as you can be, deliberately throwing up smokescreens and straw man arguments, offering no real evidence for your allegations and not desiring to give anyone a straight answer. As Paul himself wrote, "If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions. ... For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction" (1 Timothy 6:3-4, Philippians 3:18-19a).

-- Anonymous, September 30, 2000

John: Nice try at dodging all MY questions by whining that I failed to answer a couple of insignificant ones of yours. Why do I have to ask this again? Please answer MY questions about the texts....if you can. Of course, you can't, since you have neither the knowledge nor the spine for it. Instead, you call me names and try to dodge the questions by bringing up other absurd questions. As for the "proof" of the trinity in the Torah, nonsense. You know nothing of the Hebrew language, nor of rabbinic interpretation, which, as I have shown, Jesus used. Jesus "changed" a few of the Ten Commandments? What utter nonsense. Jesus' teachings were all based on rabbinic interpretations, i.e., the Talmud. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING Jesus said was original. He was merely teaching what other rabbis taught. Of course, now you will jump up and down wanting "proof". Well, chew on this then: Jesus based his teachings on the Tanach (what Christians mistakenly call the "Old" Testament; it is actually the Only Testament) and the Talmud...the Oral Torah. You want examples? Here you go:

Matthew 5:
1. And seeing the crowds, he went up into a mountain, and when he sat, his disciples approached him.
2. And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying:
them It is obvious by the context of the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience. His entire Sermon deals with issues about some of the major themes of the Torah, such as justice to the poor and downtrodden in the Beatitudes (cf. Ex. 22: 25, 23:11, Lev. 19:10, Deut. 10:17-18, 14:28-29, 15:7-11, 24:19). Jesus also gives personal teachings for specific Laws of the Torah, such as Deut. 24:1.

3. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
heaven ...he who is lowly in spirit shall obtain honor. (Prov. 29:23)

4. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
He heals the brokenhearted and heals their wounds. (Ps. 147:3)

5. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
The meek shall inherit the earth. (Ps. 37:11)

6. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they shall be satisfied.
When You will bless the righteous, HASHEM, You will envelop him with favor like a shield (Ps. 5:12).
satisfied Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "The world endures on three things; justice, truth, and peace, as it is said: 'Truth and the verdict of peace are you to adjudicate in your gates' Zech. 8:16 (Pirke Avot 1:18). The Pirke Avot is a tractate of the Mishna, a part of the Talmud. It contains many teachings of the Sages and the Rabbis who were contemporaries of Jesus. As you can see, Jesus drew upon this great Oral Tradition; what he was teaching was also being taught by many of the other rabbis of his era.

7. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy
Rabbi Gamliel said, Whoever has mercy upon creatures will be granted mercy from heaven (Shabbat 151b).

8. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Who may ascend the mountain of HASHEM, and who may stand in the place of His sanctity? One with clean hands and a pure heart (Ps. 24:3-4).

9. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
Hillel says: "Be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people, and bringing them closer to the Torah". (Pirke Avot 1:12).

10. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Bava Kamma 93a: Rabbi Abbahu said, A man should always try to be among the persecuted rather than the persecutors....'.

11. Blessed are you when they reproach you and persecute you and falsely say all kind of evil against you for my sake.
Countless Jews over the centuries have been martyred in the name of Jesus.

14. You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hid.
One of the most important themes in the Scriptures is that of the Jews being the keepers and bearers of the light of the Torah. God chose the Jews to be the teachers of mankind, to keep and protect the Torah throughout the ages. Christianity has always taught that this special status ended when the Jews rejected Jesus. Of course, the Jews didnt reject Jesus, he was a Jew who kept and taught the Torah, but they rejected the theological teachings of the Church. But the theme of the Jews being the bearers of the heavenly light which was in the Torah is a theme that runs throughout the Bible (cf. Ex. 19:5-6, Deut. 7:6-9, Is. 41:8-13, 42:1-9, 43:8-11, 49:1-6, 51:4-8, Zech. 8:22-23). This theme, that the Jews are the people chosen by God to be the keepers and teachers of the Torah, must be kept in mind when reading the Tanach, and certainly the New Testament. Many of Jesus and Pauls teachings can only be understood within this context. In Romans 3:1-2 and even more in chapter 11, Paul drives this point home
mountain
Isaiah 2:2-4. Along with the concept of the Jews being the light to the nations of the world, Jerusalem, the Holy City, is the center of Judaism and of the Torah.

16. Thus let your light shine before men so that they may see your good works and may glorify your Father in heaven
The works of the Law, the Torah.
glorify
It is by the example of the Jewish people, by keeping the Torah, that will eventually win over the nations to the truth of Gods Law.

17. Think not that I came to destroy the Law and the prophets; I came not to destroy but to fulfill. Amen!
fulfill...Amen! Matthew 5:17 is perhaps the most misunderstood and misinterpreted verse in the entire New Testament. According to Christian theology, Jesus didnt destroy the Law, he fulfilled it for everyone thereafter by keeping it perfectly. There are many problems with this interpretation however. First, the word fulfill, or pleirosai in the Greek, means to perform or accomplish. This is the same exact word used in Matt. 3:15, when Jesus tells John the Baptist that he must perform the commandment of the mikvah. It is worth noting that this is the only quote spoken by Jesus that is found in the Talmud. Also, the word Amen (Greek amein, from the Hebrew word amein) is used to punctuate or confirm a teaching or a saying that immediately precedes it. In Christian translations it is translated as either truly or verily and incorrectly connected with the following sentence.

18. For I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one point will by no means pass away from the Law until all things come to pass
Law
cf. Deut. 4:2. In the August1994 edition of the scholarly journal Statistical Science from the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (vol. 9, no. 3), pp. 429-438, there was an astounding paper by Doron Witztum, Eliyaho Rips, and Yoav Rosenburg on the secret codes found in the Book of Genesis. They discovered that, when the Hebrew letters of Genesis were lined up in rows, and subjected to a computer program which searched for equidistant letter sequences, many names, dates, and messages would appear; too many for it to be a mere coincidence. Their conclusion is that the Torah is like a tremendously complex computer program, with a unbelievable amount of information hidden within its text. This reinforces what the rabbis have been teaching for centuries, that the Torah contained a enormous amount of information to those who could unlock its secrets. This is why the Jews have, over millennia, have taken scrupulous care in copying down the Torah exactly, so that all Torah scrolls are the same. This is very different than the text of the New Testament, which was edited extensively throughout the centuries. Jesus also teaches this important principle, that not one letter of the Torah is ever to be altered.

19. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men thus, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Rabbi [Yehuhdah HaNasi] said: "Be as scrupulous in performing a 'minor' mitzvah [commandment] as in a 'major' one" (Pirke Avot 2:1).
kingdom of heaven
This verse has been one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament for Christian theologians to explain, since it negates the teaching of Jesus fulfilling the Law. To understand it in its proper perspective, you must understand the teachings based upon Deut. 12:32-13:5 (Deut. 12:32 is actually Deut. 13:1 in the Hebrew Bible) and Deut. 18:15-22. Starting with the verse Deut: 12:32/13:1; Everything that I command you, you shall carry out punctiliously (Hirsch); you must not add anything to it nor subtract anything from it. This re-enforces what I mentioned in the previous footnote, that nothing in the Torah is to be changed. The next five verses read: If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, which he spoke of to you, saying: Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us serve them, then do not hearken to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams, for HASHEM your God is putting you to the test to know whether you love HASHEM your God with all your heart and with all your soul. After HASHEM your God you shall walk, and Him you shall fear, and His commandments you shall keep, and to His voice you shall hearken, and Him you shall serve, and to Him you shall cleave. And that prophet or dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, for he has uttered untruth concerning HASHEM, your God... What this teaches is that, if a prophet arises that tries to lead Israel away from God, and that means by transgressing the Torah, he is a false prophet, and to be put to death. God Himself warns Israel that a false prophet is a test to see if the Jews will keep the Torah. In Deut. 18:18-22, it says: I will raise up for them (Israel) a prophet from among their own brethren, like yourself, and I will put My words into his mouth, so that he will speak everything that I command him. And it shall be that the man who will not hearken to My words that he will speak in My Name, of him I will demand [an accounting]. But a prophet who will speak wantonly in My Name a word that I did not command him to speak, or one who will speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word that God has not spoken? That which the prophet speaks in the name of HASHEM, and if the thing does not materialize and does not come true, that is the word HASHEM has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him. What we have here is how the Jews were able to distinguish between a false prophet and a true prophet in the cases where the prophet is not trying to lead Israel away from the Torah. This has serious implications for Christianity. First of all, the theological teaching was that Jesus fulfilled the Law, and in doing so changed the Law so that neither Jew nor Gentile had to keep the Laws of the Torah any more. If you read the Torah, you will see that nowhere does it say that the Laws and Commandments which God gave to Israel would be done away with at a later date, when He sent his son to fulfill them. Instead, over and over, God hammers in the idea that the Laws of the Torah are permanent, to be observed for all time (cf. Ex. 12:14, 12:17, 12:24, 19:9, 29:9, 29:28, 31:13-17, Lev. 3:17, 7:36, 16:29-34, 23:21, 23:31, Num. 10:8, 15:15). But, in light of the two passages from Deuteronomy, we see that God told the Jews that if a prophet, or someone who could perform miracles, tried to change any of the Laws of the Torah, and teach other Jews to do so, would be a false prophet. God had told them to be on the lookout for such a person, for he was testing them to see if they would keep His Law. Furthermore, if such a false prophet arose, he should be put to death for trying to lead the children of Israel astray. It also teaches, in Deut. 18, that a true prophet is required to show a certain sign or wonder to prove that he is, indeed, a true prophet. So, if what the Christians say is true, that Jesus did in fact fulfill the Law, then he is a false prophet under the Law of the Torah, and the Jews not only were correct in not following him, but, in total accordance with Gods command, were correct in having him sentenced to death. But, Matt. 5:17-19 does not in any way imply that Jesus was teaching that the Law was no longer valid; indeed, he taught that he came to keep it, and that the Law would not be changed in any way until the end of the age, and that any Jew who taught other Jews not to keep even the least of the commandments of God was wrong. Therefore, interpreting the text of Matt. 5:17-19 as Jesus saying that he was here to both keep and teach the Torah is in keeping with what was written in the Law, and with what the other rabbis at the time were teaching. As far as Deut. 18-18-22, this was what was behind the Jews request asking Jesus for a sign (cf. Matt. 12:38, 16:1, Mark 8:11, John 2:18). The Jews were not wanting to see a magic show; they wanted to know if Jesus was indeed a true prophet, and were testing him the way the Torah said they should.



-- Anonymous, October 03, 2000

Part 2: 20. For I tell you that except your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees, by no means shall you enter the kingdom of heaven
Jesus exhorts the Jews to be even more scrupulous in keeping the Law than the scribes and the Pharisees. Much is made in Christian theology about Jesus teaching of "going beyond the letter of the Law". Yet, we see the Talmud teaching "The Jewish state fell becouse its inhabitants were content to act simply in accordance with the strict letter of the Law" [B.M. 30b] which shows that the Talmud does indeed agree with this teaching... again, yet ANOTHER exapmle of how Jesus taught the "rabbinical traditions"....

22. But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to the judgment, and whoever says to his brother Raca shall be liable to the council, and whoever says Fool shall be liable to the gehenna of fire.
Hillel said: "Do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place" (Pirke Avot 2:5).
Rabbi Elazar the Modaite said: "One who...humiliates his fellow in public...has no share in the World to Come" (Pirke Avot 3:15).
Yehudah ben Tema said: The brazen goes to Gehinnon, but the shamefaced goes to the Garden of Eden. (Pirke Avot 5:24).

24. Leave your gift there before the alter, and first go be reconciled with your brother, and then come offer your gift.
He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her. (Kallah Ch. 1)

25. Be well disposed with your adversary quickly quickly while you are with him on the way, lest you deliver the opponent to the judge and the judge to the attendant, and into prison you are cast. Amen!
Ben Azzai said: "Do not be scornful of any person and do not be disdainful of anything, for you have no person without his hour and no thing without its place" (Pirke Avot 4:3).

28. But I tell you that everyone looking upon a woman with desire already committed adultery with her in his heart.
....the Sages said: Anyone who converses excessively with a woman causes evil to himself, neglects Torah study and will eventually inherit Gehinnom. (Pirke Avot 1:5).

29. So if your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and cast it from you, for it is expedient for you that one of your members and not all of the body be cast into gehenna.
[Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai] said to them: Go out and discern which is the evil path from which a man should distance himself. Rabbi Eliezer says: An evil eye (Pirke Avot 2:14) Rabbi Yehoshua says: An evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of other people remove a person from the world. (Pirke Avot 2:16).

32. But I tell you that everyone divorcing his wife apart from adultery makes her commit adultery, and whoever the divorced woman marries commits adultery.
The school of Shammai said: A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing (Gittin 90a).

37. But let your word Yes be Yes, and your No, No; for the excess of this is evil.
Rabbi Judah said, your 'Yes' shall be true, and your 'No' shall be true (Bava Metzia 49).

Well, these are but a FEW examples. But you get my point. Now, please don't give me any more rubbish about how Jesus didn't teach what the other rabbis of his day taught....

-- Anonymous, October 03, 2000

Mr. Cecil:

I am happy to know that you do not believe in the absurd and often answered theories of Mr. Wellhausen as you indicate by your following words:

E.Lee: Again, you need to chill. If you think that I support the Graf/Wellhausen theory, think again.

Neither do we accept them, Mr. Cecil. So the question is just why you brought them up in the first place? If you do not believe them then of what value are they in your contention that the Bible is unreliable?

Then you seem to think I am a bit clueless in my contention that genuine Christians have not been affected much by Mr. Wellhausens theories:

And if you are so clueless as to the part the Graf/Wellhausen theory has played in Biblical scholarship over the last 100 years, you are more ignorant than I thought.

I do not doubt that I am, as are most men, ignorant of many things and have not pretended to be above the possibility of suffering from this common malady. But, my statement is true nonetheless. For it is clear that you and I are using the term Christian in very different ways. You speak of all denominations, including Catholics, as being Christian simply because they believe in Christ. I, on the other hand, speak of Christians as those who not only believe in Christ but also believe in Him sufficiently to have become obedient to the gospel of Christ by repenting of their sins and being baptized into Him and become obedient to Him in all things. ( Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Thess. 1:8,9; Romans 6:3-6; Heb. 5:8,9). Of those who have actually become Christians as I have described, few have been affected by Wellhausens theory. But the fact that you are obviously clueless, as you would say, concerning just what a genuine Christian really is, I can only say that you are indeed as ignorant as I thought you were concerning Christianity. And I am aware of the effect of which you speak upon what you would call the Christian community and agree that Mr. Wellhausens theories have, in fact had such effect as you described upon them. But his theories have not had much effect upon those whom I call Christian.

Then you speak of many fellows here who understand:

There seem to be many fellows in here who have a pretty good grasp of theology. Perhaps they can enlighten you.

Perhaps they will enlighten me, Mr. Cecil, but they will certainly have to do a better job than you have done thus far if they expect to have any hope of success. For I will not be enlightened by mere assertions without evidence from my own brethren much less from an infidel.

Then you think that I am kidding and are so convinced of it that you say I must be kidding as follows:

As far as Christianity being a "divinely delivered faith"; you've got to be kidding.

No, Mr. Cecil, I am not kidding. And what is even more significant is that you know that I am not kidding. So you are as wrong on that score as you are on the rest of your assertions that you have offered without proof. But I can see why you prefer to pretend that you think that I am kidding about this. That is much easier than arguing with me about it in detail, now isnt it?

Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity.

Now, if I were not already convinced of your ignorance concerning both Christ and Christianity I would be tempted to think that you were kidding. If it were not for Christ Jesus, there would not be any Christianity in this world and no one but an egregious ignoramus would conclude otherwise. But I am willing to listen even to an ignoramus if he will offer evidence to support his assertions. So do tell us Mr. Cecil, what evidence do you have to support your wild assertion that Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity? You see, this is just another example of you affirming but not proving what you say. Are we to believe that Christ had nothing to do with Christianity simply because you say it is so?

Then you tell us:

He was a Jew who kept the Torah.

Now, Mr. Cecil, I do not know of any Christian who would deny that Christ was a Jew and that He Kept the Law of Moses or the Torah. In fact, we even go further and point out the fact that he was the ONLY Jew that PERFECTLY kept the Law. Because He was far more than a mere Jew Keeping the Law, rather he was the Messiah. He was the Emannuel, which being interpreted is God with us. (Matthew 1:18- 21). Since Christ was God, it is only natural that he would surely keep the very Law that he gave to Moses until all was fulfilled. Then said He unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory? And beginning AT MOSES, and ALL the PROPHETS, he expounded unto them in ALL the scriptures (this includes the TORAH) THE THINGS CONCERNING HIMSELF. (Luke 24:25- 27). Now, Mr. Cecil, this is something that NO JEWISH RABBI EVER TRIED TO DO! Here are just a few of the things spoken of him by Moses:  The Lord Thy God shall raise up unto thee a prophet from the mist of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him shall ye harken; ---- I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words into His mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not harken unto my words which He shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18:1518,19). Luke records Peter as quoting these same words in reference to Christ (Acts 3: 22). And just one example from the prophet Isaiah, unto us a Child is born, unto us a son is given and his name shall be wonderful, counselor, MIGHTY GOD, Everlasting father, PRINCE OF PEACE (Isaiah 9:6). Then an example from the Psalms that speaks of Christ can be found in the very exact words spoken by Christ on the Cross as he was dying having been condemned by his fellow Jews who hypocritically made void the Torah by their traditions (Matthew 15:9). The Palmist foresaw the wickedness of the Jews and says, For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (Ps. 22: 16) and this same chapter even speaks hundreds of years in advance the very words of Christ on the Cross, My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me (Ps. 22:1). Even Peter, according to Lukes account of the sermon that he preached on the day f Pentecost quotes David again and says: Men and Brethren, let me speak freely unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried and his sepulchre is with us to this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the RESSURECTION OF CHRIST, that his soul was not left in hades, neither his flesh did see corruption. THIS JESUS HATH GOD RAISED UP, WHEREOF WE ARE WITNESSES. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed for this, which ye see and hear. For David is NOT ASENDED into the heavens: but saith himself, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool Therefore let all of the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:29-36). For this reason we hear Paul, who was a Hebrew of Hebrews from the tribe of Benjamin whose conversion from Judaism to Christianity could only have been explained by his having seen Christ after his resurrection) says that Christ was, declared to be the Son of God with Power, according to the spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4). No, Mr. Cecil, no prophet ever spoke of the Messiah as being nothing more than a mere Jewish Rabbi who kept the Torah. You see, Mr. Cecil, the difference between you and I on this matter can not be whether Jesus was a Jew who kept the Torah. For we agree on that score. But I am convinced that he was also the Messiah that fulfilled the purpose of the Torah. And that He is the God who gave the Torah to Moses in the first Place and that he rose from the dead and is now sitting on the Throne of the Most High reigning over Gods kingdom on this earth. Now that is where we differ, Mr. Cecil. You want us to disagree with you that Christ kept the Law. But we cannot disagree with you on that matter for he did indeed keep the Law, PERFECTLY. Not only that but he was the fulfillment of the Law and by such he was the end of the Law. Read what Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews, said,  Wherefore, Brethren, ye also are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is RAISED FROM THE DEAD, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (Romans 7:4) This same apostle said,  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace. (Gal. 5:4) But you also want us to agree that he was nothing more than an observant Jew. We do not agree and have heard nothing from you thus far that would convince us that Christ was nothing more than a Jew who kept the Torah. Now that is where we widely differ.

Then you speak as if you believe that Christ is coming again and are certain of what he would do if he returned tomorrow:

 If he came back tomorrow, he'd be an orthodox Jew, not a Christian.

Now one thing is certain, Mr. Cecil. Christ is coming again. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat and the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Peter 3:19). For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: so shall we ever be with the Lord. (2 Thess. 4:16,17). So, as you can see there is no room at our Lords return for his being an orthodox Jew. Instead he will be the triumphant Messiah and only his faithful servants, to coin a word, the Messiahians or using the Greek form of the word for those following the Messiah, Christians. Christ as well as the term Messiah means the anointed. Jesus is the anointed King of the Jews. He is the King of Kings and there is no salvation in any other but the Messiah. And the Messiah, having fulfilled the Law, or Torah, has not promised to return and be an orthodox Jew. He will return to take His People, those who are Jews inwardly, to be with him forever more and the orthodox Jews he will punish along with all infidels who deny Him. (Matthew 10:33,34).

Then you tell us:

Jesus' teachings were the same as the other Jewish Rabbis of his day.

Which School of Rabbis did Jesus agree with in his day, Mr. Cecil? For various Rabbis did not agree with each other. Therefore his teachings could not have been the same as the all of the other Jewish Rabbis of his day because the teachings of the Rabbis of His day did not agree with each other. I am sure that some of the things that Our Lord taught agreed with some of the teachings of the Rabbis of His day. Surely they all believed in God and surely they all accepted that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament and that the Law of Moses at that time was to be obeyed. But when Christ said, Before Abraham was, I Am (John 8:58) the Jewish Rabbis of His day took up stones to stone Him to death. Give us an example of a Jewish Rabbi of His day that agreed with Him that Christ existed before Abraham and that it was appropriate for Him to use the designation that was reserved only for God, I an that I am? I do not think you will find that the Jewish Rabbis of His day would agree with Him on that matter. "Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple: And his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, see ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Matthew 24:1). What Jewish Rabbis of His day would have ever even thought to predict that the temple would be so destroyed? The teachings of Jesus Christ actually made war on most of all that the Jewish Rabbis of his day held dear and produced a system that they as well as their Jewish Rabbis to this very day abhor! He claimed to be the Messiah and taught that the Torah spoke about Him. He made himself equal with God. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my father; for which of these do ye stone me? And they answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou being a man makest thyself God. (John 10:32,33). No, Mr. Cecil, Jewish Rabbis of his day had the same problem with Christ that you and Jewish Rabbis have with Him today. He made himself out to be God and they did not like that just as you do not like it. They would have been happy with him if only he had been nothing more than a Jewish Rabbi. But they ultimately, through the hands of the Romans, crucified Him because of the very fact that his teachings were so diametrically opposed to the Jewish Rabbis of His day and His claims of deity was more than they could bear. But even to this day the Jews are unable to deal with his ultimate proof that he was indeed the Messiah and the Son of God, His resurrection from the dead. You cannot deal with it either, Mr. Cecil.

Then you make the following elaborate argument against what you consider to be a traditional argument concerning the end of Sabbath observance as follows:

Well, if you want some facts of misinterpretation due to the Christian theologian's lack of Torah knowledge, let's look at the theological explanation of Matthew 12:1-8, which theologians have traditionally used to show that Jesus did away with the observance of the Sabbath as required in the Torah. Now, pay attention, F. Lee. You might just learn something...

Now, Mr. Cecil, Pay attention and you will surely learn something. I have never used the fact that Jesus ate some grain on the Sabbath Day to prove that the Sabbath ended. If you wish to argue with me, Mr. Cecil, I suggest that you take up arguments that I have made instead of a bunch of theologians that you claim to be Christians have made. I believe that Jesus Kept the Sabbath and this includes this occasion wherein he ate grain with his disciples on the Sabbath Day. If you wish to discuss my reasons for no longer keeping the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments which included the Sabbath Laws I will be happy, as time allows discussing it with you. But do not ascribe arguments to me that have been made by traditional theologians for I am not defending them nor would I ever attempt to do so. I am defending Christianity as described in the New Testament and the Reliability of both the Old and New Testaments. That is the subject at hand, Mr. Cecil. When we finish it we can then argue about the peripheral matters. SO, you took a real hard swing there Mr. Cecil but missed your target altogether. Ha! Learn to look before you leap! Ha!

Well, that is enough for now. I must get some sleep. But do not be too concerned Mr. Cecil. When I return it will be to take up your nonsense concerning the Virgin Birth. For in it you demonstrate a great deal of ignorance while at the same time pretending to be superior in knowledge to everyone who would disagree with you. But, stay tuned, who knows, you just might learn something yourself, even though you appear convinced that you have nothing left to learn about these matters.

For Christ Our Lord and my Brethren who love him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2000

Mr. Safford:
I ask for answers to my questions about the reliability of the text. You give me theological retorts. I want facts, not theology. You seem quite muddled as to the difference. You give me theological statements such as In fact, we even go further and point out the fact that he was the ONLY Jew that PERFECTLY kept the Law. Because He was far more than a mere Jew Keeping the Law, rather he was the Messiah. He was the Emannuel, which being interpreted is God with us. (Matthew 1:18- 21). Since Christ was God, it is only natural that he would surely keep the very Law that he gave to Moses until all was fulfilled and But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat and the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Peter 3:19). For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: so shall we ever be with the Lord. (2 Thess. 4:16,17). So, as you can see there is no room at our Lords return for his being an orthodox Jew. Instead he will be the triumphant Messiah and only his faithful servants, to coin a word, the Messiahians or using the Greek form of the word for those following the Messiah, Christians. Christ as well as the term Messiah means the anointed. Jesus is the anointed King of the Jews. He is the King of Kings and there is no salvation in any other but the Messiah. And the Messiah, having fulfilled the Law, or Torah, has not promised to return and be an orthodox Jew. He will return to take His People, those who are Jews inwardly, to be with him forever more and the orthodox Jews he will punish along with all infidels who deny Him. (Matthew 10:33,34).
Again, you fail to prove anything. You say that Jesus will not be an observant Jew? Does not your own "scriptures" (yes, as in faux scriptures) say that "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow"? [Heb. 13:8]. You are implying that Jesus is NOT the same tomorrow as he was yesterday. You contradict your point. As to Jesus being the "only" Jew who has kept the Torah "perfectly", well, that is simply theological nonsense. Lots of Jews have, and still do. Even the NT says so...read Luke 1:5-6.

You base your entire argument on theological priciples, which were invented MUCH later than when the NT was written, by men who knew not Jesus, nor what he taught. You yourself show a woeful ignorance of the Torah, or rabbinical teachings, poo-pooing them as invalid, when they were in fact the basis of Jesus' teachings. I stand by what I said. When you come up with some valid arguments against them, instead of the same old tired theological ho-hum, I'll respond.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2000

Mr. Cecil,

I do not agree with you theologically, because I believe Jesus to be Yahuweh, ha Moshiyach, but I should have warned you that there is a 'Karate' style of exigesis on this forum, and several have 'black belts' in hermeneutics. ;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2000

Mr. Cecil:

You have said:

Mr. Safford: I ask for answers to my questions about the reliability of the text. You give me theological retorts. I want facts, not theology.

When we ask questions of you Mr. Cecil they are ignored and you change the subject to other things. If you will notice in my last post, I am taking up your assertion sentence by sentence and responding to them. When I get down to the sentences where you ask questions about the reliability of the text you will receive my response to those questions.

The following are your words that I have responded to in from your post thus far in the order in which you gave them:

E.Lee: Again, you need to chill. If you think that I support the Graf/Wellhausen theory, think again.

I guess that was a theological retort on your part but you said it and I responded. But you have said nothing particular about the text in this comment. In fact you admit that you do not agree with the wellhausen theory which you initially presented to show that the Bible was unreliable. But with the above statement you admit that you do not believe in those theories and thus give up that argument and I simply point that out to you. But you say nothing in this sentence about the text. I am simply following your lead Mr. Cecil by responding sentence by sentence to every word that you have said. When I get to any arguments by you on the text I will answer them. But in the order in which you present them.

Next in order you say:

And if you are so clueless as to the part the Graf/Wellhausen theory has played in Biblical scholarship over the last 100 years, you are more ignorant than I thought.

I responded to this because it is next in order of your post but nothing here about the text, now is there?

Next in your order you say:

There seem to be many fellows in here who have a pretty good grasp of theology. Perhaps they can enlighten you.

There is nothing to this remark but a feeble attempt at insult. But not one question about the text.

Next you said:

As far as Christianity being a "divinely delivered faith"; you've got to be kidding.

This is not a question about the text, now is it? I guess this is theological retort from you, now isnt it? But it is not a question about the text, now is it?

Next you said:

Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity.

Now this is another theological assumption as well as a theological retort Now isnt it? But there is nothing here about the text either.

Then you said:

 If he came back tomorrow, he'd be an orthodox Jew, not a Christian.

What does this have to do with the text? Is this not a theological retort? Ha! You see you want to be able to make all of these numerous retorts and have us to ignore them while we question your assertions about the text. But we are not playing by your rules, now are we? We are answering every word that you say sentence by sentence without missing any of them.

Then you said:

Jesus' teachings were the same as the other Jewish Rabbis of his day.

Well what does this have to do with the reliability of the text? If you want to discuss the reliability of the text then stick to that subject and we will respond to you on what ever your say. Now since I am following your order of presentation of your arguments you have no one to blame but yourself for these retorts that you do not like. Because you have made nothing but several theological assertions without proof therefore it is only reasonable that you should expect one who is following you sentence by sentence to respond to those things.

Now the next thing in order of your post is your nonsense concerning the Virgin Birth of Christ. I will take that up the next time that I have the time to write as I mentioned in my last post. Currently I am at work and cannot spare time to respond.

So in any place that you talk of the text you will get a response and in any place that you offer theological assertions without proof you will get a retort whether you like it or not.

Your delusion that you are only interested in facts is evident to anyone reading all of the above theological assertions that you have made without evidence to support them. You are still living in your own little fantasy world that you are the sole contributor of facts and therefore you do not want us to bother you with questions. By the way, if you will simply go back and look you have ignored deliberately numerous questions that have been ask of you. One who is only interested in the facts would not do that, Mr. Cecil.

You say:

I want facts, not theology. You seem quite muddled as to the difference.

Well why do not you just answer the arguments by proving that our words are theology and not facts? In fact why do not you prove that theology itself cannot be factual! The word Theology simply means the study of God. Are there no facts that we can learn about God? So, your illusion that theology mutually exclusive from fact only shows just how muddled you appear to be about the difference between fact and theology. AN you even cannot realize that I am only responding to your theological assumptions such as If Jesus returned tomorrow he would be an orthodox Jew. Now you do not establish such statements as fact, now do you. You simply assert then and expect us to accept them as fact simply on that basis.

SO, stop crying, Mr. Cecil and answer the arguments as you have time to do so.

For Christ our Lord,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2000

Mr. Cecil:

I only have a few minutes but I want to respond to some of the things that you have said. You say:

Again, you fail to prove anything. You say that Jesus will not be an observant Jew?

Well, just because you say I have failed to prove anything does not make it so, now does it? I have made several arguments to which you have not responded. If these arguments do not prove my point why do you not simply demonstrate such by taking them up one by one and prove to us that each of them does not prove anything? Merely reading the arguments and stating that they do not prove my point just will not work, Mr. Cecil. Respond to each of them and show that they do not prove anything.

Then you ask:

Does not your own "scriptures" (yes, as in faux scriptures) say that "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow"? [Heb. 13:8]. You are implying that Jesus is NOT the same tomorrow as he was yesterday.

Well, I am glad that you consider these scriptures reliable enough to be used to prove your case that Christ is a Jewish Rabbi. Your argument goes like this:

Major Premise: Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and whatever he was he will always be.

Minor Premise: Christ was once a Jewish Rabbi.

Conclusion: Therefore he will always be a Jewish Rabbi, even when he returns.

Though there is some doubt about your interpretation of the passage in Hebrews that supports your major premise, Your problem is with your minor Premise. You have yet to prove that Jesus was ever a genuine Jewish Rabbi. Until that is proven your conclusion does not follow from your premises and your reasoning is not valid. WE need to consider your evidence, if you have any that proves that Christ was a Jewish Rabbi. I have asked you much about this and you continue to ignore my questions. If you cannot establish without any doubt that Christ was ever a Jewish Rabbi then it is impossible for you to reasonably conclude that he will be such upon His return to the earth.

Then you contend that I contradict my point but you do not show any contradiction as follows:

You contradict your point. As to Jesus being the "only" Jew who has kept the Torah "perfectly", well, that is simply theological nonsense. Lots of Jews have, and still do. Even the NT says so...read Luke 1:5-6.

Here all you do is show a passage that in your opinion contradicts my point that Jesus was the only one to keep the Law of Moses Perfectly. I will quote this passage which says, Therefore in the days of Herod, the King of Judaea a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: And his wife Elizabeth. And they both were righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless. (Luke 1:5,6). Notice that this passage does not say that Zacharias and Elizabeth walked in the Commandments and ordinances PERFECTLY. It says instead that they walked in them blameless. This passage is not teaching that they never failed in their entire lives to obey the Law but that they walked in these blameless. The fact that God arranged for sacrifices to be offered every year for the sins of the people is proof that no Jew other than Christ who was "God with us" kept the Law perfectly. These sacrifices is what made it possible for them to be considered blameless until the time came for sacrifices to be made and then all of their sins would be remembered until the high priest offered sacrifices for the sins of the people. All that any Jew could ever do was be blameless by doing their best to walk faithfully and righteously according to the Law and offer sacrifices according to the Law so that they could be temporarily considered blameless in Gods sight every year. But the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins. These sins came on them again and again every year and because of the sacrifices for the sins of the people those who walked uprightly according to the Law would be made blameless every year. But no Jew today is benefited by those sacrifices and therefore none of them are even blameless, much less perfect keepers of the Law as was Christ our Lord. Christ himself knew no sin. And therefore had no need to be made blameless by the yearly sacrifice. This is the difference of which I speak. Christ was tempted in all Points like as we are yet without sin (Heb. 5:16). This could not be said of any human being, Jew or Gentile, then or now. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23).

Then you talk about that upon which my entire argument rest:

You base your entire argument on theological priciples, which were invented MUCH later than when the NT was written, by men who knew not Jesus, nor what he taught.

Well, Mr. Cecil, if you think that is true why do not you even attempt to prove it? This is nothing more than another one of your assertions for which you offer not one shred of evidence to support it. Prove to us that these scriptures that both you and I are quoting were invented at all. Prove to us that these scriptures were invented MUCH later than when the NT was written. Prove to us that men who knew not Jesus, nor what he taught wrote them all. Tell us just how you know that God did not deliver through the Holy Spirit these words through the apostles and inspired men of the New Testament. WE cannot believe your assertions, Mr. Cecil, until you prove them to be true. Thus far you have failed miserably and it does appear to be frustrating you.

Then you complain about my ignorance again:

You yourself show a woeful ignorance of the Torah, or rabbinical teachings, poo-pooing them as invalid, when they were in fact the basis of Jesus' teachings.

Well, why do not you just enlighten me and teach me about these things wherein I am woefully ignorant of the Torah or Rabbinical teachings". I am willing for you to teach me but you will have to do a better job than you have thus far. I have already told you that I will not be enlightened by anyone who does nothing more than assert their views. I want proof, Mr. Cecil. So, do come in here and enlighten me and cure my woeful ignorance" by offering proof of your numerous assertions.

Now I have not poo-pooed the Law of Moses (the Torah) as being invalid. I, along with Christ, differ widely with many rabbinical teachings that were contrary to the Torah. But any that is consistent with the Law of Moses I do not claim to be invalid. The Law of Moses was a schoolmaster to bring us to the Messiah. Have done that it accomplished its purpose and it is now useful for our learning (Romans 15:4). And again you assert that the Law of Moses and Rabbinical teachings are the basis of Christ teachings. This is what we are debating, Mr. Cecil. You do nothing but assert this to be true. Now how about offering proof that it is true? I deny that your assertion is true and have shown clear differences between Christ and the Rabbis of His day. But you have simply ignorde what I have said about that matter. So we wait for your proof if you have any.

You say that it is a fact that rabbinical teachings and the Torah are the basis of Jesus teaching. Well, if that is a fact as you assert why is it that you cannot offer any facts that prove such to be the truth? What are the facts that prove your assertion that the Torah and the rabbinical teachings are the basis of the teaching of Christ. We wait to hear any evidence for thus far you have only asserted such. If you are really a man interested in the FACTS then show us by presenting such facts as will prove your mere assertions. Otherwise we can do no more than Ho-hum and yawn as we read your old and tired way of asserting and then assuming that all will simply believe you. Because you express yourself in the old and tired pretentious manner of the self designated elitist who writes and speaks in scholastic tones without scholastic substance. You are like clouds without water. You are like a dry well in the desert. You are as a tree whose fruit withers. You speak empty words and we simply Yawn.

Then you say:

I stand by what I said. When you come up with some valid arguments against them, instead of the same old tired theological ho-hum, I'll respond.

It is a good thing that you stand by what you have said because if you were to try to stand upon such a flimsy and unsupported platform you would surely fall on your face! I will offer valid arguments against your assertions if you ever come up with ANY evidence that even remotely appears to offer some reasonable or valid arguments to sustain them. Your arguments cannot be answered Mr. Cecil until you actually make an argument. This you have not done. Assertions are not arguments, Mr. Cecil. So, make an argument and if we disagree with it we will answer. Make mere assertions and all anyone can do is yawn and ask for proof of them.

For Christ our Lord and my Brethren who love Him,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2000

Saffold: Yesterday I had quite a long post showing how Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was, in fact, based upon rabbinical teachings. You ignored the post. You ignore the facts. You want to argue about lesser, insignificant items (such as why I included Wellhausen in my post on the development of theology) yet disregard my many supports of my arguments. Here is the post again. It's not about Wellhausen. It's about how Jesus' teachings were simalar to the other Jewish rabbis of the second Temple era.

Matthew 5:
1. And seeing the crowds, he went up into a mountain, and when he sat, his disciples approached him.
The Greek says IN the mountain. An ancient tradition says that Jesus taught in a cave on the mount of Olives.

2. And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying:
them It is obvious by the context of the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience. His entire Sermon deals with issues about some of the major themes of the Torah, such as justice to the poor and downtrodden in the Beatitudes (cf. Ex. 22: 25, 23:11, Lev. 19:10, Deut. 10:17-18, 14:28-29, 15:7-11, 24:19). Jesus also gives personal teachings for specific Laws of the Torah, such as Deut. 24:1.

3. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
heaven ...he who is lowly in spirit shall obtain honor. (Prov. 29:23)

4. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
He heals the brokenhearted and heals their wounds. (Ps. 147:3)

5. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
The meek shall inherit the earth. (Ps. 37:11)

6. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they shall be satisfied.
When You will bless the righteous, HASHEM, You will envelop him with favor like a shield (Ps. 5:12).
satisfied Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "The world endures on three things; justice, truth, and peace, as it is said: 'Truth and the verdict of peace are you to adjudicate in your gates' Zech. 8:16 (Pirke Avot 1:18). The Pirke Avot is a tractate of the Mishna, a part of the Talmud. It contains many teachings of the Sages and the Rabbis who were contemporaries of Jesus. As you can see, Jesus drew upon this great Oral Tradition; what he was teaching was also being taught by many of the other rabbis of his era.

7. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy
Rabbi Gamliel said, Whoever has mercy upon creatures will be granted mercy from heaven (Shabbat 151b).

8. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Who may ascend the mountain of HASHEM, and who may stand in the place of His sanctity? One with clean hands and a pure heart (Ps. 24:3-4).

9. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
Hillel says: "Be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people, and bringing them closer to the Torah". (Pirke Avot 1:12).

10. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Bava Kamma 93a: Rabbi Abbahu said, A man should always try to be among the persecuted rather than the persecutors....'.

11. Blessed are you when they reproach you and persecute you and falsely say all kind of evil against you for my sake.
Countless Jews over the centuries have been martyred in the name of Jesus.

14. You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hid.
One of the most important themes in the Scriptures is that of the Jews being the keepers and bearers of the light of the Torah. God chose the Jews to be the teachers of mankind, to keep and protect the Torah throughout the ages. Christianity has always taught that this special status ended when the Jews rejected Jesus. Of course, the Jews didnt reject Jesus, he was a Jew who kept and taught the Torah, but they rejected the theological teachings of the Church. But the theme of the Jews being the bearers of the heavenly light which was in the Torah is a theme that runs throughout the Bible (cf. Ex. 19:5-6, Deut. 7:6-9, Is. 41:8-13, 42:1-9, 43:8-11, 49:1-6, 51:4-8, Zech. 8:22-23). This theme, that the Jews are the people chosen by God to be the keepers and teachers of the Torah, must be kept in mind when reading the Tanach, and certainly the New Testament. Many of Jesus and Pauls teachings can only be understood within this context. In Romans 3:1-2 and even more in chapter 11, Paul drives this point home
mountain
Isaiah 2:2-4. Along with the concept of the Jews being the light to the nations of the world, Jerusalem, the Holy City, is the center of Judaism and of the Torah.

16. Thus let your light shine before men so that they may see your good works and may glorify your Father in heaven
The works of the Law, the Torah.
glorify
It is by the example of the Jewish people, by keeping the Torah, that will eventually win over the nations to the truth of Gods Law.

17. Think not that I came to destroy the Law and the prophets; I came not to destroy but to fulfill. Amen!
fulfill...Amen! Matthew 5:17 is perhaps the most misunderstood and misinterpreted verse in the entire New Testament. According to Christian theology, Jesus didnt destroy the Law, he fulfilled it for everyone thereafter by keeping it perfectly. There are many problems with this interpretation however. First, the word fulfill, or pleirosai in the Greek, means to perform or accomplish. This is the same exact word used in Matt. 3:15, when Jesus tells John the Baptist that he must perform the commandment of the mikvah. It is worth noting that this is the only quote spoken by Jesus that is found in the Talmud. Also, the word Amen (Greek amein, from the Hebrew word amein) is used to punctuate or confirm a teaching or a saying that immediately precedes it. In Christian translations it is translated as either truly or verily and incorrectly connected with the following sentence.

18. For I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one point will by no means pass away from the Law until all things come to pass
Law
cf. Deut. 4:2. In the August1994 edition of the scholarly journal Statistical Science from the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (vol. 9, no. 3), pp. 429-438, there was an astounding paper by Doron Witztum, Eliyaho Rips, and Yoav Rosenburg on the secret codes found in the Book of Genesis. They discovered that, when the Hebrew letters of Genesis were lined up in rows, and subjected to a computer program which searched for equidistant letter sequences, many names, dates, and messages would appear; too many for it to be a mere coincidence. Their conclusion is that the Torah is like a tremendously complex computer program, with a unbelievable amount of information hidden within its text. This reinforces what the rabbis have been teaching for centuries, that the Torah contained a enormous amount of information to those who could unlock its secrets. This is why the Jews have, over millennia, have taken scrupulous care in copying down the Torah exactly, so that all Torah scrolls are the same. This is very different than the text of the New Testament, which was edited extensively throughout the centuries. Jesus also teaches this important principle, that not one letter of the Torah is ever to be altered.

19. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men thus, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Rabbi [Yehuhdah HaNasi] said: "Be as scrupulous in performing a 'minor' mitzvah [commandment] as in a 'major' one" (Pirke Avot 2:1).
kingdom of heaven
This verse has been one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament for Christian theologians to explain, since it negates the teaching of Jesus fulfilling the Law. To understand it in its proper perspective, you must understand the teachings based upon Deut. 12:32-13:5 (Deut. 12:32 is actually Deut. 13:1 in the Hebrew Bible) and Deut. 18:15-22. Starting with the verse Deut: 12:32/13:1; Everything that I command you, you shall carry out punctiliously (Hirsch); you must not add anything to it nor subtract anything from it. This re-enforces what I mentioned in the previous footnote, that nothing in the Torah is to be changed. The next five verses read: If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, which he spoke of to you, saying: Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us serve them, then do not hearken to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams, for HASHEM your God is putting you to the test to know whether you love HASHEM your God with all your heart and with all your soul. After HASHEM your God you shall walk, and Him you shall fear, and His commandments you shall keep, and to His voice you shall hearken, and Him you shall serve, and to Him you shall cleave. And that prophet or dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, for he has uttered untruth concerning HASHEM, your God... What this teaches is that, if a prophet arises that tries to lead Israel away from God, and that means by transgressing the Torah, he is a false prophet, and to be put to death. God Himself warns Israel that a false prophet is a test to see if the Jews will keep the Torah. In Deut. 18:18-22, it says: I will raise up for them (Israel) a prophet from among their own brethren, like yourself, and I will put My words into his mouth, so that he will speak everything that I command him. And it shall be that the man who will not hearken to My words that he will speak in My Name, of him I will demand [an accounting]. But a prophet who will speak wantonly in My Name a word that I did not command him to speak, or one who will speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word that God has not spoken? That which the prophet speaks in the name of HASHEM, and if the thing does not materialize and does not come true, that is the word HASHEM has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him. What we have here is how the Jews were able to distinguish between a false prophet and a true prophet in the cases where the prophet is not trying to lead Israel away from the Torah. This has serious implications for Christianity. First of all, the theological teaching was that Jesus fulfilled the Law, and in doing so changed the Law so that neither Jew nor Gentile had to keep the Laws of the Torah any more. If you read the Torah, you will see that nowhere does it say that the Laws and Commandments which God gave to Israel would be done away with at a later date, when He sent his son to fulfill them. Instead, over and over, God hammers in the idea that the Laws of the Torah are permanent, to be observed for all time (cf. Ex. 12:14, 12:17, 12:24, 19:9, 29:9, 29:28, 31:13-17, Lev. 3:17, 7:36, 16:29-34, 23:21, 23:31, Num. 10:8, 15:15). But, in light of the two passages from Deuteronomy, we see that God told the Jews that if a prophet, or someone who could perform miracles, tried to change any of the Laws of the Torah, and teach other Jews to do so, would be a false prophet. God had told them to be on the lookout for such a person, for he was testing them to see if they would keep His Law. Furthermore, if such a false prophet arose, he should be put to death for trying to lead the children of Israel astray. It also teaches, in Deut. 18, that a true prophet is required to show a certain sign or wonder to prove that he is, indeed, a true prophet. So, if what the Christians say is true, that Jesus did in fact fulfill the Law, then he is a false prophet under the Law of the Torah, and the Jews not only were correct in not following him, but, in total accordance with Gods command, were correct in having him sentenced to death. But, Matt. 5:17-19 does not in any way imply that Jesus was teaching that the Law was no longer valid; indeed, he taught that he came to keep it, and that the Law would not be changed in any way until the end of the age, and that any Jew who taught other Jews not to keep even the least of the commandments of God was wrong. Therefore, interpreting the text of Matt. 5:17-19 as Jesus saying that he was here to both keep and teach the Torah is in keeping with what was written in the Law, and with what the other rabbis at the time were teaching. As far as Deut. 18-18-22, this was what was behind the Jews request asking Jesus for a sign (cf. Matt. 12:38, 16:1, Mark 8:11, John 2:18). The Jews were not wanting to see a magic show; they wanted to know if Jesus was indeed a true prophet, and were testing him the way the Torah said they should.



-- Anonymous, October 04, 2000

20. For I tell you that except your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees, by no means shall you enter the kingdom of heaven
Jesus exhorts the Jews to be even more scrupulous in keeping the Law than the scribes and the Pharisees. Much is made in Christian theology about Jesus teaching of "going beyond the letter of the Law". Yet, we see the Talmud teaching "The Jewish state fell becouse its inhabitants were content to act simply in accordance with the strict letter of the Law" [B.M. 30b] which shows that the Talmud does indeed agree with this teaching... again, yet ANOTHER exapmle of how Jesus taught the "rabbinical traditions"....

22. But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to the judgment, and whoever says to his brother Raca shall be liable to the council, and whoever says Fool shall be liable to the gehenna of fire.
Hillel said: "Do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place" (Pirke Avot 2:5).
Rabbi Elazar the Modaite said: "One who...humiliates his fellow in public...has no share in the World to Come" (Pirke Avot 3:15).
Yehudah ben Tema said: The brazen goes to Gehinnon, but the shamefaced goes to the Garden of Eden. (Pirke Avot 5:24).

24. Leave your gift there before the alter, and first go be reconciled with your brother, and then come offer your gift.
He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her. (Kallah Ch. 1)

25. Be well disposed with your adversary quickly quickly while you are with him on the way, lest you deliver the opponent to the judge and the judge to the attendant, and into prison you are cast. Amen!
Ben Azzai said: "Do not be scornful of any person and do not be disdainful of anything, for you have no person without his hour and no thing without its place" (Pirke Avot 4:3).

28. But I tell you that everyone looking upon a woman with desire already committed adultery with her in his heart.
....the Sages said: Anyone who converses excessively with a woman causes evil to himself, neglects Torah study and will eventually inherit Gehinnom. (Pirke Avot 1:5).

29. So if your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and cast it from you, for it is expedient for you that one of your members and not all of the body be cast into gehenna.
[Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai] said to them: Go out and discern which is the evil path from which a man should distance himself. Rabbi Eliezer says: An evil eye (Pirke Avot 2:14) Rabbi Yehoshua says: An evil eye, the evil inclination, and hatred of other people remove a person from the world. (Pirke Avot 2:16).

32. But I tell you that everyone divorcing his wife apart from adultery makes her commit adultery, and whoever the divorced woman marries commits adultery.
The school of Shammai said: A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing (Gittin 90a).

37. But let your word Yes be Yes, and your No, No; for the excess of this is evil.
Rabbi Judah said, your 'Yes' shall be true, and your 'No' shall be true (Bava Metzia 49).

Well, this sure sounds like Jesus was teaching a lot of Jewish rabbinical "traditions". It's right there, in black and white. I can put up many many more examples, but seeing how no one wants to even discuss ONE example, I don't see the point. Now, you can jump up and down, and call me an "infidel", but to accuse me of not supporting my position is absurd. I have plenty of support. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi. He taught Torah, not Christianity. Deal with the facts.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2000

Alan Cecil,

'Theology' literally means 'the study of God.' In a general sense, Jewish rabbis use a sort of theology of their own. Maybe you should point out specific problems you see with hermenutics, instead of condemning 'theology' in general. If people use a different method of hermenutics to interpret the Bible, the study of God is still 'theology.'

You offered a theory about Joseph wanting to divorce his pregnant wife Mary to make her free to remarry if he should unknowingly die on the way to Egypt, and then marry her back on his return, I suppose. You said this was a superior story to the one in the New Testament, and that it related to the culture of the day.

This is something I just don't get at 'liberal' theology. Some liberal theologians invent stories as substitutes for Biblical stories, and through in some cultural details which make it sound feasible, and then (this is the insane thing) strongly believe and fight for their made up theory as if it were a historical fact.

Someone-don't know who- put forth a hypothesis that the crossing of the Red Sea was not a miracle, but was a mythologized account. This person reconstructed a story which relates to a phenomenon that occurs int eh area from time to time- the wind blows the sea back to very shallow depths in some part of the area.

The thing that is totally insane is that, based on this hypothesis, scholars and students aruge that this is how the Israelites crossed the Red Sea- AS IF IT WERE FACT. Now if someone becomes convinced that something is fact based on such weak evidence inthe real world, such a person may be diagnosed as schitzophrenic or paranoid.

For example, someone finds a loose board on the stairs, and the idea comes to his mind that maybe someone took the board off and hid under the stairs. It's a possible hypothesis. But if the man has no more evidence than this, gets scared, and becomes completely convinced that there were people under the stairs, we would consider him to be crazy. But let the same man come up with just as far-fetched of a theory to re-explain a story in the Bible, and he is considered a Bible scholar.

My Old Testament professor at UGA, who also taught Hebrew, told a joke something like this when talking about Elijah. The liberal explanation for the fire descending and consuming the sacrifice is that Elijah poured kerosine instead of water on the sacrifice, hid a match behind his back, and then threw it on the fire when no one was looking. That was a joke of course, since the match is too much of an anachronism for anyone to take it seriously, but this illustrates the method of Bible interpretation some liberals take. Why believe in the story in the first place? Why believe Elijah went up on that mountain? Maybe the liberal scholar might suppose that such a story would have to have some sort of historical root. But to just make up a conceivable story, and then put it forth as fact is to close to insanity for my liking.

The problem with many liberal theologians is that they just don't believe in miracles. Why not? Because they are ignorant. They have a materialistic view of the universe. They don't believe in supernatural things happening in the earth. They think things work thorugh natural laws only. Why? Because that is the limit of their experience, and that is the way they have been taught. Supernatural things occur, but many liberal theologians are ignorant of them. They don't have experiences where they have recognized miracles or supernatural works of God, or supernatural works from demons. Liberal theologians who have experience with the supernatural may still inconsistently hold to liberal views on miracles becaus that is the way they have been socialized to believe. There is a body of literature that is considered to be scholarly that offers liberal explanations for miracles. Their colleges believe in these explanations. They have been taught these things so many times that they believe them.

It is interesting that liberal ideas do not seem to be common among chruch people here in Indonesia. There is too much experience with the supernatural (very much of it negative) here in Indonesia. Many people have experienced the effects of witchcraft. It is hard for an anti-supernatural bias to get a hold in this environment.

I suppose it is possible for a liberal theologian to have experience with the supernatural and still hold to non-miraculous explanations of the Bible. It is possible, but not really consistent. Many of the liberal stories used as explnations for the root of the miraculous Biblical stories were invented for no other reason than the fact that liberals wouldn't accept a story that included an aspect of the supernatural.

For people of faith who believe in miracles, our foundation for interpreting the scriptures will be completely different, so our conclusions should be different as well. A lot of 'scholarship' on topics related to the Bible is just a pile of cow manure. Such foolish speculation would not be tolerated in many other fields.

My professor in college commented how other sources outside of the Bible are given a lot of weight in scholarly journals, but there is a heavy prejudice against the Bible. An obscure quote from a very biased piece of propaganda from an Egyptian scroll may be taken as fact, while the stories of kings which give an even-handed account of their successes and failures found inthe Bible are considered unreliable.

Personally, I find some of your speculation about certain ideas- the idea that Jesus was originally considered to be a Moshaiah (sp?) , rather than a Meshiach (am I understanding you right)- if you really believe that as if it were fact- is not rational. It isn't rational just to believe such speculation as if it were fact.

People who believe in the Gospel of Christ will have a different view of things. If we believe in Jesus Christ- that He is Jesus the Messiah, that He died on the cross and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures- then it is reasonable to believe that He sent His followers to preach His message. There were many witnesses of the resurrection of Yeshua, and of His teachings. Some of their teachings were written down. We have a number of these teachings in the New Testament canon.

Jesus had 12 apostles and various other followers. Matthew wrote an account of Jesus' teachings. If we believe that Yeshua rose from the dead, and that He had 12 apostles, it is not difficult for us to believe their writings. If we believe Yeshua rose from the dead, it is not difficult for us to believe that He was born of a Virgin. His mother was still alive after Pentecost. He had several disciples in Jerusalem who passed on the account of His life after He died.

Those who do not believe in miracles have developed various theories about the development of the New Testmaent. We who believe in Christ and believe in miracles can easily believe that He did miracles. The accounts of the New Testament make sense. We have a number of books written by men from the first century who knew Jesus and lived with Him. We can accept this testimony.

The person who doesn't believe in demons doesn't believe Jesus could cast them out. The person who does not believe in healing and miracles may want to rewrite history to fit his own ignorant view of the universe which does not include the miraculous. People with this point of view can't accept the gospels as is. They can't accept Christ's miracles or His resurrection. So they make him out to be a revolutionary, or a regular rabbi. The content of the Gospels is bound to be similar because these apostles heard the same teachings, lived in the same city ministering together, and repeated them over and over again. Of course their would be great similaries. Those who relate long stories over and over often do it in the same way. Another man may tell the same story but with minor variations. When these apostles and their disciples wrote down the Gospels, it makes sense that these Gospels would be similar.

Scholars from a modern culture which is heavily into the written word,(as opposed to a culture which has a lot of oral story telling) have come up with the idea that Mark (or a longer Q document) was written first and served as a source for the other Gospels. This theory is widely accepted in many circles. But for those of us who believe in miracles, and believe in Christ, we start with a different set of assumptions, so this Q theory isn't so persuasive. We believe these miracles and events happened. So it makes more sense that these apostles wrote down the events that happened. Similarities in style make perfect sense in light of the fact that hese men were a part of the same religious community.

Alan, i would like to encourage you to keep studying about Jesus, and to keep praying for God to show you more about Him. Jesus is the Messiah of the people of Israel. After Jesus was crucified, and rose again from the dead, within about 40 years, the temple was destroyed, in accordance with Jesus' prediction. Decades later, Israelis were scattered all over the world- not for 70 years BUT FOR THE BETTER PART OF 2000 YEARS. If the Babylonian captivity were for disobedience to the covenant, what was the reason for Israel being scattered for such a long time? Yeshua had been crucified?

Many Gentiles have believed on the Suffering Servant. Moses predicted that Israel would be provoked to jealousy by them that are no people. Gentiles believe on the Messiah of Israel. Some Jews do as well. But much of Israel does not believe on her own Messiah.

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 bore the iniquities of 'us all.' Who is the 'us' there if not the nation of Israel? The interpretation of this passage which says that the Servant is really the nation of Israel just doesn't fit.

Keep praying and seeking G-d on this.

Link Hudson

TO EVERYONE ELSE:

Sit back and think for a minute. I see a lot of messages to Alan with this type of reasoning: "You use the New Tetsmaent, so you have to believe it is inspired. If you argue out of it and you don't believe in it, you are not playing by a consistent set of rules."

Think about how the early evangelists evangelized. They did share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they proved the Gospel using existing scriptures (the Old Testament) using hermenutical principles in use by rabbis of the day.

Try to see things from Alan' perspective when you talk to him. If he does not believe in the New Testament, that doesn't mean he won't read it or have ideas about it. If Alan is in the process of learning about Yeshua Ha Meshiach and doesn't believe yet, then of course he will have questions about the New Testament. Of course he won't believe everything yet, if he is not a Messianic/Christian yet. Of course he will use the New Testament even though he doesn't believe it.

Link

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2000

D Lee Muse,

About the blood issue not allowing cruelty to animals, I've come across this on the 'net before. The idea is that the prohibition against blood and unslaughtered meat would prohibit chopping off a part of an animal and eating it. The animal has to be slaughtered first. You can't just cut off a cow leg and eat it. Also, rocky mountain oysters would be forbidden as well, I think, since they are cut off a live animal.

The Torah and Old Testament says somethings that relate to not being rueld to animals.

The rabbis developed kosher laws which included instructions that an anmial be slaughtered in a certain way, with a sharp knife, so that the cut would not be too painful.

-- Anonymous, October 05, 2000

Alan

One of the early bits of information released about he Torah codes back in the mid-90's was that the word for holocaust (shua?) is encoded at intervals of 40, in the Hebrew text of the passage which relates the curses for being disobedient to the covenant.

I have a book somewhere which shows that 'Yeshua is His name' or a similar phrase is encoded at a numerically significant interval in one of the suffering Servant passages in Isaiah. There is a book full of such codes about Jesus. If you are interested, and I get my phone line at home working, I might be able to email you some information about codes to check out. There was a code list back before that pop lit book came out on the subject, with all the non-mathematical codes.

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2000

Link: Thanks for the rational, levelheaded response...there is too little of that in here.
Yes, "theology" means, "Study of G-d". But, in Orthodox Judaism, there is no such thing as "theology". Rabbinic hermeneutics is quite different from Christian theology. Rabbinic hermeneutics is a sophisticated, exact system of interpretation, to make sure that no verse is taken out of context, or interpreted inaccurately. Christian theology has no such system. If you study how theology developed in the early church, and see the reasoning behind the interpretations, the slap-dash methods of exegesis that produced the body of theology that is still the basis of Christianity today, you will see the difference.

Now, you went off on a bit of a tangent on "liberal" theology. I am hardly liberal when it comes to matters of the Bible. I reject liberal scholarship for the same reasons that I reject theology; it is not Torah-based. By this, I mean that the Jewish Bible is constantly interpreted by using non-Jewish means. It is like reading a book on capitalism written by Fidel Castro.
The point about the "miracles" is not whether or not they occurred...I certainly DO believe in miracles...but how they are interpreted. So, Jesus did many miracles. I say: so what? Not one miracle done by Jesus had been done before, or at least something quite similar. Jesus rose from the dead. So what? So did others. Jesus ascended into heaven. So what? So did Elijah. Does not the NT talk about Moses and Elijah appearing and talking to Jesus (the "Transfiguration" story)? How long had Moses and Elijah been dead? Longer than three days, that's for sure.
My point here is: Did Jesus do these things to "prove" Christian theology (which didn't even exist at the time) was true? Or that he, Jesus, was a prophet who kept the Torah and taught that the Torah was true, and should be kept? That is what this entire on-going debate is all about. I say the latter.
You mention people who believe in the "Gospel of Christ"...well, which Gospel? The "Good News" that the Torah was given by G-d, and it is eternal (as G-d Himself said many times) and that, if kept, will lead to the Salvation of Israel, collectively and individually? Or the "Good News" of Christian theology, which did not exist until long after Jesus and the Apostles died?
You talk about "believing that Jesus rose from the dead". Well, that's not so difficult. G-d can do whatever He wants with His creation. That's what makes Him G-d. The NT is VERY clear that G-d raised Jesus from the dead...Jesus did not do it himself. WHY G-d raised Jesus is quite another point, as I have already mentioned. G-d raising Jesus does not make me want to believe in Christian theological interpretations whatsoever; it only re-affirms my belief in the One Almighty G-d.
I have studied this for a long long time. The more I learn about Jesus takes me farther and farther away from Christian theology, and closer and closer to the faith of Jesus. You seem to look at this as a "prize fight" between Jesus and Moses. Nothing is further from the truth. Jesus and Moses are in the same corner, on the same team. The opponent is a pagan religion that goes against all that they stood for...a pagan religion that owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan religions such as Mithraism than the true Word of G-d: the Torah.
As for Israel's diaspora; I have covered that in a previous post. It was due to "hatred without cause"...
Isaiah 53 is indeed about Israel. It is the forced Christian interpretations that do not fit...why else are the Hebrew mistranslated in so many places?
Now, you speak of looking at this from my perspective. What I am suggesting is that you look at it from Jesus' perspective and not the Church's perspective. Jesus, and all the "Church leaders" in Acts, were Observant Jews. Yes, just like Jews today. They kept the Law. They taught the Law. Yes, they believed Jesus was the Messiah, but only in a purely Jewish sense. Look at Acts 21:17-26.
Anyway, I've said my piece. But I still await a response about what I posted the other day....Jesus' teachings being based upon the Oral Law.

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2000

Alan,

I have a friend who has pointed out to me Jewish hermenutic methods in the New Testament, from the writings of Jesus and Paul. He is in Jerusalem, and he believes in Jesus. I think you might like to discuss some of these things by talking with him. He knows more about many of these issues than I do. If you are interested, email me.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2000

Alan, you wrote,

"The NT is VERY clear that G-d raised Jesus from the dead...Jesus did not do it himself."

This is another example of the unsubstantiated assertions you continually make. The New Testament is actually VERY clear of the opposite. Allow me to direct you to an eyewitness account of a confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees.

In the gospel written by the apostle John, in chapter two (verses 13- 22), we read where Jesus cleared the temple of the moneychangers that were making a mockery of it, charging usury for temple sacrifices. Angered, the temple staff confronted him.

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"

NOW pay very close attention to the next verse:

But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

Since temple he had spoken of was his body, not the actual temple, let us put those words into Jesus' original sentence to discover the true meaning and import of his words:

Jesus answered them, "Destroy my body, and I will raise it again in three days."

Jesus claimed that it would be he himself who would raise his body from the dead. It is further recorded,

After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

His own followers believed him. How is it that you do not?

Now, it is true, that the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, faithfully recorded by Luke, says that God raised him from the dead. Which brings us back to the original and most important question, which Jesus himself asked: "Who do you say that I am?"

"If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2000

Keep up the good fight, John!

Connie

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2000

I killed a deer the other day. According to the Rabbi's......I'm I going to hell???
No, but if you keep asking brainless questions like that you might. And, if you want "scriptures", I have a bunch on the sermon on the mount from a previous post you can look at...about Jesus teaching the rabbinic traditions. Please answer those.

I have a friend who has pointed out to me Jewish hermenutic methods in the New Testament, from the writings of Jesus and Paul. He is in Jerusalem, and he believes in Jesus. I think you might like to discuss some of these things by talking with him. He knows more about many of these issues than I do. If you are interested, email me.
Link: I've talked to many many rabbis, theologians, etc. over the years. If he wants to talk to ME, he can e-mail ME.

Alan, you wrote, "The NT is VERY clear that G-d raised Jesus from the dead...Jesus did not do it himself." This is another example of the unsubstantiated assertions you continually make. The New Testament is actually VERY clear of the opposite.
Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead
Acts 2:32 God has raised this Jesus to life
Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."
Acts 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead--whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Acts 10: 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.
Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead
Acts 13:34 The fact that God raised him from the dead
Acts 13:37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay
Acts 17:31: For he [G-d] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
Romans 4: 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Romans 8: 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Romans 10: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1 Corinthians 6: 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.
2 Corinthians 4: 14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence
Galatians 1: 1 Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--
Ephesians 1: 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
1 Thessalonians 1: 9. for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,
10. and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead-- Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
Colossians 2:12 : having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Hebrews 13: 20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,
"Good fight" Connie? John just lost by a score of 20 to 1.
Now, John, allow me to direct you to my previous post about Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Explain Jesus' use of "rabbinic traditions" and the Talmud, please. Which brings us back to the original and most important question, which Jesus himself asked: "Who do you say that I am?"

As I said before, he was rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, answer the question about the sermon on the mount, please.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

How about all of the Messianic prophecies of the Tanach? Especially Isaiah 53?

Did Yeshua ha Moshiach ~ the Deliverer, not the Anointed, (ha Mashiach)~ and 'Messiah' in the Hebrew is a third spelling, I believe ~ [it's spelled differently in different sources] fulfill those for you? Or are you still waiting for Messiah?

Is He really just a man to you, or are you saying that He WAS raised from the dead, whether by the Father's power or His own?. (They were both God, so it's moot).

'Who do YOU say that I AM', He asked Peter. I'm asking you who you say that He is. He was not the son of Joseph. The step-son, but not the Son.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

O-O-p-s, Alan,

I see by your last sentence that you believe Jesus was only a man.

I realize that the NT has been tinkered with in a way that the Tanach has not, but that is no reason to throw all of it out.

The message is still there.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

O-O-p-s, Alan,

I see by your last sentence that you believe Jesus was only a man.

I realize that the NT has been tinkered with in a way that the Tanach has not, but that is no reason to throw all of it out.

The message is still there. :(

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2000

No, I don't think we need to answer your questions anymore, on the Sermon on the Mount or on any other topic. We have faithfully answered your questions, with reason and with sound logic, with Jesus' own words and from the Torah, and you continue to ignore us and make illogical and unfounded assertions, using our forum as a platform to teach your blasphemous heresy. You are obviously not here as an enquirer but as a preacher of the cult of B'nai Noah.

As it is written elsewhere in this forum, "Please understand all visitors are welcome here to read our posts. But you must understand we are a group of Christians who (for the most part) believe in a certain way ... We do not have the time nor inclination to examine all of your various world views. This Forum is not intended for you to expound them. They will be deleted as soon as they are noticed." I think it is time we to whom this forum belongs heed our own words, as well as John's charge not to welcome you or give you a forum for teaching your heresy in our "house" any longer.

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000

Well, John, that's the typical cowardly response I get from Christians when they realize that they are over their heads, and their very faith (which is not based on G-d, BTW) is threatened. You have "faithfully answered my questions with reason and with sound logic"? You have done nothing of the kind, sir. You have merely spewed out knee-jerk theological statements, and have avoided answering my questions, such as the reliability of the three main text-types, or when I clearly show that Jesus' teaching is indeed based upon the Talmud. As far as the charge of "blasphemous heresy", I beg to differ. You are quite a clueless group, to be sure. I have had my work read my many theologians, professors, people with much greater education and credentials than you, and while not agreeing with it, they certainly appreciate the facts and the logic behind my work. As for you, sir, I am neither impressed with your facts, which I have not seen, nor your manners, which I have.

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000

Ohhh ... I'm hurt! (Sticks and stones ...) Once again, all rhetoric, no substance.

This "typical cowardly response" you speak of was Jesus' commandment for how we should treat those who did not believe. "Who has believed our report?" We are to shake the dust from our feet and move on. If this is cowardice, then Jesus was the consummate coward. You've disrespected us and our beliefs, you've made false statements (lies), assertions without proof (You say: "the facts and the logic behind my work" Logic? Facts? WHERE?!), refused to listen to any of our sound arguments and refused to answer questions put to you. Its foot-dusting time.

At least I give you credit for one thing: you didn't bring the Jesus Seminar into all of this. Like you, the Jesus Seminar scholars are also famous for making dogmatic assertions while failing to provide any defensible arguments. The eminent Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner called the Jesus Seminar "either the greatest scholarly hoax since the Piltdown Man or the utter bankruptcy of New Testament studies."

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000

I see the problem. I will use smaller words and shorter sentences so as not to confuse you. Now, on Oct. 3 I put up a post...about Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. If the words are not too big, try to read it. It has examples of Jesus using the Talmud, and the Tanach. All of my sources are documented. It is very enlightening...oops...big word. It is something you should read, since you said that Jesus didn't use "rabbinic traditions". Now, don't be scared. I know having to challenge your pre-conceived ideas is not easy, but I'm sure you can do it if you try.

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000

I will admit... I am in over my head...

Time-wise, that is.

I have scanned this thread... it is way too long! For those continuing in the debate with Alan, it appears that both sides are beating a dead horse. It will be archived in this Forum for posterity, however. Thanks for those of you taking the time to answer his arguments. If I encounter any of the B'nai Noah heresy in my daily encounters, I will know where to turn for reasoned response.

Thanks to you too, -l-n, for helping us sharpen our axes as we continue to fight heresy and defend the truth.

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000

It's in the Talmud..you know, the Talmud? What Jesus himself taught from? Sanhedrin 56b.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2000

Alan Cecil,

Isn't it one of the High Holy days right about now, around the time of Yom Kippor?

Where do you get that Jesus taught from the Talmud? I don't think that was even finished when Jesus was ministering on the earth. The Gospel show Him pointing out the inconsistencies of talmudic style interpretations.

Rabinnic Judaism Torah based? Where is the 'legal-cult' in the Torah which gives power to rabbis. The Torah has a lot about the tabernacle/temple, Levites and priests. Rabbinic Jusaism has evolved away from the Torah.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2000

Where do you get that Jesus taught from the Talmud? I don't think that was even finished when Jesus was ministering on the earth. The Gospel show Him pointing out the inconsistencies of talmudic style interpretations.

*sigh*. I present my argument, I back up what I say, I give examples. What more do you want? Jesus did so teach from the Talmud...that is word used to describe the Oral Law. If you say that Jesus merely "pointed out the inconsistencies of talmudic style interpretations" then you don't know beans about the Talmud. As I pointed out in my Oct. 3 post, Jesus' "interpretations" were in fact Talmudic interpretations.

Rabinnic Judaism Torah based? Where is the 'legal-cult' in the Torah which gives power to rabbis. The Torah has a lot about the tabernacle/temple, Levites and priests. Rabbinic Jusaism has evolved away from the Torah.

And I ask you; where is the "legal cult" of the church in the Torah? Or in the Tanach, for that matter? To answer: it isn't. Christianity is a made-up religion that has no basis in the Torah.
And to answer the second part; remember the elders of the Torah? The 70 elders? That was the beginning of the Sanhedrin. And no, rabbinical Judaism is not the same as the Torah; it cannot be, since the pagans destroyed the Temple and drove the Jews from Israel. Judaism is a religion based upon the Torah, just as the Noahide faith is. Oh, and FYI, the Noahide Law was recognised by President Bush back in '92 as being the basis of moral law around the world.


Thanks Alan!!! I wanted everyone to see the words of Jesus proven out by you....i.e., "You place your traditions above the Word of God." I think that that verse describes Christians much better. Christianity is not based on the Torah, but on Greek philosophy and other pagan cults such as Mithraism...

This is why a conversation with you is fruitless.

Conversation is never fruitless. I simply know both sides of the argument. You don't.

The Talmud means nothing to Christians.....they are simply traditions which led to the Jews rejection of Christ and their accusing Him of breaking the law.

I think I have shown already your statement is false. Neither you, nor anyone else in here, has answered any of my posts on Jesus using the Talmud. I posted the part of the Sermon on the Mount TWICE, and not one response. Of course, I already know why you don't respond. You are afraid. Yes, the truth hurts sometimes, but that's life in the big city...

Jesus never broke the law.....He broke the "hedges" (i.e., the oral traditions that surrounded the law).

As I have pointed out, Jesus in fact kept and taught the Oral Traditions of the Torah.

The Talmud is an uninspirired collection of a bunch of old Jewish scribes sitting around debating the law.....pure and simple. Interesting.....yeah....I got a copy of it. Inspired?? No!! Word of God?? Definetly not!!!

Well, Danny, I look at the NT and Christianity in the same way...a bunch of uninspired pagans sitting around debating what was what...read about the fight with Marcion, or the Arians, or...well, too many early Christian cults to name. Of course, one cult did emerge out of the fight triumphant...the Catholic church. And don't tell me that the Protestant church is a throwback to the "true" church, because that is nonsense. The protestants kept most of the Catholic theology, while getting rid of the political structure. If the Protestant church had based itself on say, the Arians, things would be different now....

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

Alan,

Do you believe Yeshua was raised from the dead? (In one of your posts, I think you made reference to such, but I've forgotten the thread). What of Yeshua in the Tanach? Or don't you talk to women?

Unfortunately, some of what you say is true. Much of the 'New Testament' has been altered by various translators. Mainly the RCC to support its biases (salvation by immersion is one of them) and many protestant (Reformation) churches have kept the errors. The names and terminology are from pagan religions. [Lord, Jesus, and Christ, are among them; Changed and implemented finally by Constantine, et al. Because they hated the Jews ~ but they thought 'The Son God' ~ 'Sunday' ~ was O.K.].

Another is that Yahuweh does not want His Name to be spoken. He LOVES having His Name spoken! That is another introduction of the RCC.

Check out:

jkapteyn@afmp.nl

Boy, I'd better get my 'whole armor of God' and my asbestos underwear on now! I'm going to get it from BOTH sides.

Affectionately IN YESHUA, VIA YAHUWEH,

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

Ah, yes, here it is from the last post on October 6th:

You talk about "believing that Jesus rose from the dead". Well, that's not so difficult. G-d can do whatever He wants with His creation. That's what makes Him G-d. The NT is VERY clear that G-d raised Jesus from the dead...Jesus did not do it himself. WHY G-d raised Jesus is quite another point, as I have already mentioned. G-d raising Jesus does not make me want to believe in Christian theological interpretations whatsoever; it only re-affirms my belief in the One Almighty G-d.

How many people has God raised from the dead? I haven't been to cemetary, so I don't want to say the ones which come to mind, in case it is in error. [All of us who accept Yeshua's propitiation will also be resurrected eventually].

But I think that as Yahuweh (called 'God' in our translations,) raised Him from the dead, and John Wilson's references attributing deity to Yeshua (called 'Jesus' or 'Christ' in our translations) HE IS YAHUWEH!!!

Praise His Holy Name,

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

< Connie.....

I'd prefer that you NOT discuss you "underwear" on the forum.

Thanks!

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), October 11, 2000.>

I must have missed something.:-)

Nelta

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

Boy, I'd better get my 'whole armor of God' and my asbestos underwear on now! I'm going to get it from BOTH sides.

It was imaginary underwear ~ 'virtual underwear', if you please.

;-) ;-)

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2000

The 'Whole Armor of God', is real, though!

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Alan,

I am a son of Noah. But notice that the covenent with Noah does not promise them that they would be justified in the sight of God. I am justified in the sight of G-d by Yeshua HaMachiach, whose coming brought light ot the Gentiles. As a Gentile, I am saved by that one Jew, who died and rose again by the power of G-d.

It is not the case that the Gentiles must turn to the Jews to be saved. Rather, all Gentiles and Jews must turn to the one Jew, the Messiah, Whom G-d has chosen.

One of the ways God has revealed His will is through the history of Israel. We see in the Torah that God promised to raise up a prohpet like Moses. Moses considered himself to be a deliverer. When he tried to arbitrate a dispute between two Herbews, they said 'Who made you a ruler and a judge over us.' Moses said that Israel must hear this prophet. Messiah has come to His people, and was rejected. But He will return to rule and judge. The Messiah which is to come is non other that Yeshua HaMessiah.

Considering the story of Joseph. Yeshua in his own life was called the son of Joseph. See how Joseph suffered because of the sins of his own brethren. Yeshua is the suffering Servant. He suffered for his brethren. Notice also that Joseph saved not only Israel, but also many nations. Nations came to him and bought grain. And he was raised up to rule as the kings first officer. Messiah is on the right hand of God. Joseph's brothers bowed down to him and acknowledged his authority over them. Israel will acknowledge Yeshua. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Contained in the Torah there are also many promises of blessings if Israel is obedient to the covenant, and curses if she is disobedient. Israel fell into idolatry and was taken off into captivity. Judah was in captivity for at least 70 years. After a while, a remnant of Judah was allowed to come back to the land. Judah lived in that land for centuries.

Then the rulers of Israel crucified a great Prophet and miracle worker, the Messiah of Israel. Israelites _pierced_ Yeshua, as Zechariah predicted. He bore the curse of sin, sin which he did not commit. The Lord put the iniquities, not only of Israel, but of all the nations upon Him. Within forty years, as the Messiah predicted, the temple was destroyed and Israel was trampled down by the Gentiles.

Many Israelites believed in Jesus, but many, many others did not. As prophesied, light was shown to the nations. The believers in Jesus took the light of the gospel to the Gentile nations, and many believed on him.

How did the nations learn about the covenant of Noah? How did they learn about morality? How did they learn not to sacrifice to idols? Did the light come to them through the Jews? It came through Jews like Paul who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and through other Jews an Gentiles who believed the good news of the Messiah.

The Jews were driven from their lands. Earlier, the Jews had been driven from their land for disobedience to the covenant for at least 70 years. After Yeshua was crucified the Jews were driven from their land for nearly 2000 years! Rabbis might come up with all kinds of theories about whyt his happened. But if we look at the Torah we see one big reason that this could happen. Disobedience to the covenant.

I am not justified by being a descendant of Noah. You are not justified by keeping the Law? Why not? Because you don't completely keep the Law. You don't even have a temple to sacrifice in. The law says he that does not keep the law is under a curse.

David was justified apart from the Law. He committed adultery. How could he be just undr the law, which demanded his blood, and still live? Yet he could write 'blessed is he whose iniquities are forgiven. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin.' Consider the example of Abraham, who was justified by faith when he beleived God. This is the Abraham who received the promise that God would bless the nations of the world by his Seed. Christ is the Seed of Abraham through whom God blessed the world. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. We believe God's promise of the Seed of Abraham that would bless the nations, and it is counted to us for righteousness.

Look at history. Why were the Jews driven from their land? Give me a Torah based answer? Why did the light come to the Gentiles through Christ? Gentiles throughout the world know about Moses primarily because of those who preach Jesus, rather than because of Jews who do not.

Be a light to the nations. Put your faith in the Messiah God sent your people. You wait for him to return. If you live to see it, remember the prophecy of Zechariah that they will look on Him whom they have pierced.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000

Elisha performed miracles. But God did them. Moses performed a miracle and the Red Sea split. But God did that miracle.

Jesus said 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.' But the Bible also teaches that God raised Jesus from the dead. There are several verses which show that God raised Jesus from the dead. One famous one is Romans 10:9. The Psalms also say that God would not allow his holy One to see corruption. There is no contradiction here.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2000