Claiming Originality – Excerpt from Supplement

Claiming Originality – Excerpt from Supplement

IV. 25. Page 216

In this section Brown takes a page out of Jesus’ book, and besmirches Judaism and her teachers.

When Jesus presented his moral teachings to his audience, it was not enough for him to encourage his followers to aim for a higher moral standard. It was important for him to claim that his teaching was original, and that the teachers who preceded him failed to understand some basic moral insights. By doing so, Matthew’s Jesus set the stage for the subsequent teaching of John’s Jesus that the Jews are children of the devil. Eventually, the European people came to believe that the Jewish people are so intimately connected with evil that they fail to appreciate some of the most basic principles of morality.

Brown too is not satisfied to present Jesus’ moral teachings. He finds the need to paint a fictitious portrait of Judaism as a legalistic belief system with only the dimmest understanding of morality.

Brown points to Jesus teaching against anger as a “deeper” understanding of the Law. The fact is that Jesus taught the Jewish people nothing that they did not already know. The rabbis taught against anger, making sure to point to the Scriptural source for their teaching (b. Nedarim 22b, based on Ecclesiastes 7:9).

Brown points to Jesus’ teaching against lustful thoughts as another example of an “exclusive” moral insight of Jesus. The Rabbis also taught against lustful thoughts, making sure to attribute the moral insight to Scripture (b. Eruvin 18b, based on Proverbs 11:21, see also Job 31:1).

Jesus’ teaching “let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”, is also cited by Brown as an example of Jesus’ moral superiority over the teachers of Rabbinic Judaism. The problem with Brown’s assertion is that the Talmud records precisely the same teaching, again pointing to a Scriptural source for this concept (b. Bava Metzia 49a, based on Leviticus 19:36, see also Leviticus 19:11, Proverbs 12:22).

The famous teaching of “turning the other cheek”, which Brown interprets as “not seeking retaliation”, is explicitly stated in the Torah – Leviticus 19:18.

The philosophy of “loving your enemies”, is also echoed in Rabbinic literature (b. Bava Metzia 32b, based on Exodus 23:5, see also Leviticus 19:17).

Brown speaks of Jesus’ advice to perform acts of righteousness in secret as another example of Jesus’ “original” insights. Again, this is a well known Rabbinic teaching based on Scripture (b. Succah 49b, based on Micah 6:8).

The teaching “forgive others so that we may be forgiven” is also not a “Jesus original” as Brown seems to assume. The Talmud presents the same teaching (b. Rosh Hashana 17a, based on Micah 7:18).

Jesus’ warning not to store up treasures on earth is found in the Talmud as well (b. Bava Batra 11a, with various Scriptural quotations including Isaiah 3:10).

The warnings against greed and love of money are also found in the Rabbinic writings (Avot 4:21, Kohelet Raba 1), and these concepts are found in the books of Scripture especially in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (e.g. Proverbs 15:27, Ecclesiastes 2:11).

The concept of trusting on our Father’s goodness is a prevalent theme in both the Rabbinic writings and in the Jewish Scriptures (e.g. Jeremiah 17:7, Psalm 55:23).

Jesus’ teaching against being judgmental, and his encouragement for self-examination are also paralleled in the Rabbinic sources (b. Bava Kama 93a, Bava Batra 60b based on Zephaniah 2:1).

(At this point, one might ask: How did Jesus provide an example for self-examination? By teaching that he could do no wrong, his followers could not fathom why he died such an ignominious death. In sharp contrast to Jesus, when two of the Pharisee leaders were being executed by the Romans they provided an incredible example for self-examination. One said to the other: “in an instant you will be together with the righteous, why then do you cry?” The response was: “I am crying because we are dying like those who have murdered and violated the Sabbath.” The former comforted his companion: “perhaps you were eating or sleeping and a woman came to ask you a question concerning the Law and your students turned her away. Does not the verse say “if you oppress them (the widow and the orphan) I will smite you by the sword?” It is these people who Jesus slandered when he taught the world that the Pharisees ignore the commandment of caring for the widow and the orphan (Matthew 23:14).)

Brown concludes that traditional Jews might find these concepts: “profound but vague”. Brown warns that traditional Jews will need “some level of reorientation” to implement these moral teachings (page 217). I find this simply amazing. Brown seems to be under the impression that no traditional Jew ever heard of these concepts. Just to get an idea as to how skewed Brown’s view of reality actually is, please consider the following. A Messianic teacher decided to try to implement Jesus’ moral teachings. He created a website that focuses on the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus and he elaborates and expands on each one. He draws most of his sources from rabbinic literature! (Here is the link to his site – http://rivertonmussar.org/)

Brown seems to be locked into an “either or” world view. Either one follows a religious legal code, or one follows a moral code. The Scriptures teach and the respective histories of the Church and the Synagogue confirm that it is “both or neither”.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

504 Responses to Claiming Originality – Excerpt from Supplement

  1. Dave says:

    Yisroel Some of the scriptures seem to be a stretch concerning the subject. ?? Many examples are good. I always had a problem with “All that came before me are thieves and robbers” Yet it is obvious that He doesn’t include Moses, Elijah or other prophets. I think he meant the false teachers that Ezekiel and Jeremiah speak about. He obviously in Matthew 5:17-19 gave honor to the Torah. I believe Brown would have best done service to his Master if he would have said Torah gives you that which you must do, and according to Paul and John when Born again it just happens (Like Brown in his former drug addiction)…. It never worked for me…… and it only seems to work for those making the money)

    • Dave
      The idea is that God gave us a complete teaching (Psalm 19:8). If you give God’s words to the wise they will find all goodness there (Proverbs 9:9). For Brown to insinuate that Jewish people don’t understand morality would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

  2. CP says:

    Yes! Yeshua taught Torah!
    He never claimed originality, rather pointed consistently to GOD.

    Christianity may have its own message attached on the back of the Torah, but they’ve enough integrity to leave the Torah intact and untouched.

    One would think a Jewish lover of Torah would be thrilled a Jewish man has spread Torah to the ends of the earth.

  3. CP says:

    R’B, please humor me for a minute;

    Suppose Yeshua had in his day sat to have his picture painted by an artist. And suppose this picture survived today. We would know some basics about Yeshua, for instance; hair length, eye color, skin color etc… We would Not know specifics like; height, weight, how many hairs per eye brow, etc…. Also, not having real subjects in real time to compare to the artist’s renditions we know nothing of the skills of the artist. Therefore we instinctively know a fairly decent portrait will generally look enough like the one painted to recognize them, however no one would use a eyebrow hair count from a painting to verify his identity.

    Although there is no extant portrait of Yeshua in oils or watercolors we do have a portrait painted in Words. However these Words were originally spoken in Aramaic, filtered and translated through a hearer; penned in Greek and now translated into English. Putting aside probable redactions and editing we have a fairly decent record of what Yeshua taught but nothing close enough to count eyebrow hairs.

    Eyebrow hair counting is the reason for almost 40,000 different Christian denominations. It is also the reason many reject Yeshua as Messiah. Yet when we look at the big picture we see a Jewish brother who taught and lived Torah till his last breath. Because of his actions there have been about 6 billion copies of Tanach in many languages to the nations of the world. This is overlooked by Jews and Christians alike in favor of eyebrow hair counting; reading into the text a hyperlteralism that was never intended in order to prove their favorite flavor of doctrine.

    • Concerned Reader says:

      CP, eyebrow counting is not what is going on.

      The messiah needs to rebuild the temple, in gather the exiles, rebuild and secure the land of Israel, (which the nations will help with,) and then the messiah will teach all the nations to serve G-d together, so that we don’t have to teach each other about different views of G-d anymore.

      That hasn’t occurred yet, even according to believers in Yeshua. Jews therefore have scriptural support to say no to Jesus.

      So, here is the point. There is no pressing reason for Jews to accept Yeshua on a sound mutually exclusive scriptural basis. Period. Jesus’ movement did bring the Tanakh to millions of gentiles, and EVENTUALLY in their own languages. However, to get the Bible into a vernacular language took well into the protestant reformation period, and required much bloodshed before it took hold.

      Christian denominations have spent centuries spilling their own blood, as well as the blood of Non Christians. The prince of peace may be a symbol of peace on an individual basis, but on the macro scale, he has been a tool of Tyranny, imperial expansion, and death. I’m not dismissing what you say, I’m telling you why people can be reasonably unconvinced by your reasons for accepting him.

      • CP says:

        Concerned Reader,

        It not here asking anyone to accept Yeshua. What I am asking is to argue fairly; give irrefutable evidence to reject Yeshua. Even Christians acknowledge many Messianic prophecies are unfulfilled awaiting fulfillment in the prophesied second coming. So where is the argument? In the absence of any Tanach prophecy declaring all prophecy will be fulfilled in one coming and some prophecies indicating more than one, there should at least be a ‘wait and see’ attitude.

        • LarryB says:

          CP
          I’ve asked for a reason to accept Jesus. You told me so that I could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. From what I see people don’t think that gift the Holy Spirit you speak of is real. If there is no reason to accept there is no need to reject.

          • Eleazar says:

            The circular Catch 22 is that Jesus said that the only way one will accept him is if they already have the holy spirit. Besides,Tanakh makes several references to people being endowed with the holy spirit with no mention of Jesus or a messiah. Otherwise, I refer CP back to Hebrews 10 and the purpose of Christians “receiving the holy spirit”. It is so they will no longer sin, thus no longer needing a sacrifice, since the NT teaches that ANYTHING short of absolute perfection is sin requiring a blood sacrifice.

          • LarryB says:

            Eleazar
            Where is that in the tanaka? I don’t doubt you.

      • LarryB says:

        CR
        Sorry I seemed to have just repeated what you said so well.

        • Eleazar says:

          Judges 3:10, Judges 6:34,Judges 11:29-33
          Also,

          When the prophet Samuel anointed Saul to be king, he said that when Saul met other prophets, “Then the spirit of YHVH will come upon you mightily …”

          When Samuel anointed David, “the spirit of YHVH came mightily on David.” In the next verse, “the spirit of YHVH departed from Saul.”

          David cries out in Psalm 51:11, “Do not take Your holy spirit from me.”

          Pharaoh also noted that Joseph was “endowed by the spirit of God.”

    • CP You ask for a solid reason why one should reject Yeshua – but your Yeshua exists nowhere but in your imagination – the fellow portrayed in the Christian Scriptures is confusing to say the least – the fellow that history knew contributed to terrible atrocities – atrocities that handing out billions of Bibles cannot whitewash – so who do you want us to reject? The person that you wish once existed?

      One more note – you speak of this spirit – what tells you that others do not have a similar spirit of light, clarity and a deeper understanding of right and wrong? Does this spirit that is poured on you not allow you to recognize it others?

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • CP says:

        R’B,
        You wrote;
        CP You ask for a solid reason why one should reject Yeshua – but your Yeshua exists nowhere but in your imagination”

        Comment;
        I am not the only one who attempts to take unbiased, fair and logical approach to the NT, stripping away anything that disagrees with Torah. I’ve even seen some comment here. But there are many more.

        You wrote;
        ” the fellow portrayed in the Christian Scriptures is confusing to say the least ”

        Comment;
        Paul is confusing, but Yeshua stripped of Pauline Doctrine and contemporary Christianity is Not. Yeshua’s teachings are a simple returning to the spirit of Torah.
        I am curious, what is it (after stripping away anti-Torah doctrine) do you find confusing about Yeshua? Sure there is confusing stuff others said about Yeshua, but what is there confusing about what he said?

        R’B,
        “the fellow that history knew contributed to terrible atrocities ”

        Comment;
        I see in the middle east and Africa, many Toyota pickup trucks with machine guns mounted in the back committing terrible atrocities. Should we blame Toyota Corporation for these atrocities? Evil people commit atrocities with whatever they can get their hands on and will use anything to justify their actions. Did Yeshua ever teach others to commit the atrocities you speak of? Did Yeshua ever commit atrocities himself?

        You wrote;
        ” atrocities that handing out billions of Bibles cannot whitewash – so who do you want us to reject? The person that you wish once existed?”

        Comment;
        I would like you to reject the Jesus contemporary Christianity teaches. And take a fair look at the Jewish Brother who lived, taught and died a Torah observant Jew.

        You wrote;
        One more note – you speak of this spirit – what tells you that others do not have a similar spirit of light, clarity and a deeper understanding of right and wrong? Does this spirit that is poured on you not allow you to recognize it others?

        Comment;
        Yes, and other spirits as well.

        • “Did Yeshua ever teach others to commit the atrocities you speak of? Did Yeshua ever commit atrocities himself?”

          quote:

          Another reason is equally circular, namely , that jesus is recorded to have preached ‘unqualified love’ elsewhere. but how did the fellows determine that it is the loving jesus that is authentic rather than the more violent one? if this saying is so starkly contraposed to the love sayings, then why does the redactor not see that? denying that jesus uttered this logion because it alludes to MIC 7.5-6 is also circular. given that QUOTING, or ALLUDING to, the HEBREW BIBLE was common in jewish exegesis of the time, how did the fellows determine that jesus could not allude to that passage?

          However, perhaps the most common strategy is to misread jesus’ purpose clause, (‘for i have come to set a man against his father…’) as a result clause, which is not what the grammar of jesus’ language indicates at all. the relevant clauses in mt. 10 .34-35 are PURPOSE clauses, as indicated by the infinitives, in the greek expression…

          ‘ do not think that i have come to bring peace on earth; i have not come to bring peace, but a sword. for i have come to set a man against his father….’

          As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17

          ‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’

          jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent
          end quote

          you have to admit cp that christians have used the words and teachings of jesus to cause hate and division. this is undeniable fact of history.

          • CP says:

            mr.heathcliff,
            Per Tanach people rightly deduced the Messiah would bring peace, but they thought it was to happen immediately. Yeshua corrects them, showing them other things must happen first per Tanach.

            Yes, I do admit (so called) Christians twisted and continue to twist the teachings of Yeshua to justify their evil actions. But I ask you; What does this have to do with Yeshua that evil people would twist his words?

            It is one thing to have been taught a thing, but quite another to look at it honestly.

        • CP The process of stripping Jesus of Pauline doctrine is a highly subjective process – self-centeredness is a human failing that stands independent of Pauline doctrine – the Jesus of the Christian Scriptures preaches a deeply Jesus-centered view of existence – (such as “I am the way etc. – but in so many other teachings this concept comes across) – this Jesus-centered way of looking at the world is what lies at the root of the atrocities (if you don’t love Jesus that proves that you are not human) – how can you be sure that the Jesus that actually existed was not as self-centered as the gospels portray him?

          There was a typo in my previous comment – my question was if the spirit that you possess does not allow you to recognize others (people that don’t believe as you do) as possessing a positive spirit? Or does it? I didn’t get your answer – in short do you believe that it is possible for someone who doesn’t believe in Jesus to possess a spirit that produces positive results similar to the spirit that you possess?

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            Perhaps if you would understand the teachings of Yeshua from a different perspective of Yeshua. mr.heathcliff above ^^^ speaks of the “purpose” of Yeshua, but in doing so ignores Yeshua plainly stated purpose in favor of more ambiguous statements. Let’s take a look at a couple of plain statements:

            “And hearing this, Jesus *said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.””
            (Mark 2:17)

            “But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.””
            (Matthew 15:24)

            R’B, others may say, but I am not saying anyone here needs Yeshua, only they know if they are righteous before GOD. However I will say sinners need Yeshua and it pains me to see others try to take Yeshua and his teachings away from those who need his help to get back to GOD.

            Unless one has preconceived notions, Yeshua can easily be read as pointing to GOD and to Torah, calling for repentance to those who have been lost.

            By all means, battle the falsity of Christianity, but battling someone GOD sent to call back the lost; that’d be a huge mistake if you ask me.

          • CP Indeed, Yeshua can easily be read as a teacher who was very righteous and only pointed to God and to His Torah – if you want to imagine that someone like that once existed – fine and well – who could take that from you? But I hope you realize that Jesus can just as easily be read as a person who preached that the entire universe points to himself – and historically that has been the more prevalent reading (to put it mildly)

            However – you don’t just want to accept Yeshua as a good teacher (and again, if you imagine he was I will not debate you) – but you want to accept him as Messiah – not just any Messiah – but the Messiah predicted by the prophets of the Jewish Bible – how can you do that? On what basis? It is not our business to show you how he can’t be the Messiah – it is his business to show how he is the Messiah – and if he has no concrete evidence – then it is not our business to wait and see but it is his business to wait before demanding acceptance as Messiah

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            Without getting into a Scripture verse gunfight, I’m fairly sure you agree there are prophesied aspects of Messiah which are mutually exclusive. For example; coming on the clouds vs riding on a donkey. It is not beyond reason to conclude the Messiah job may be completed in stages. There is nothing in Tanach which prohibits this possibility.

            If as I said earlier; if a person is righteous before GOD, by Yeshua’s own words; he didn’t come for them. There is no denying millions have turned from sin to GOD because of him and Torah has spread to the world. Granted millions of evil people have perverted his message, but that in no way dismisses the truth.

            I think there is clearly enough evidence to accept Yeshua is anointed by GOD to do a particular work.

          • CP There is no passage in Scripture which has Messiah riding on the clouds – no one ever thought of the possibility of Messiah coming in two stages until their favorite Messianic candidate failed to do what they expected him to do – historically no one came to this conclusion (two comings) on the basis of a reading of the Jewish Bible alone

            Millions have turned from sin to God on the basis of Mohammed’s teachings does that make him the Messiah? Same for Joseph Smith, Shlomo Carlebach and Mahatma Ghandi – where does the Scripture say that this is the job description of the Messiah?

            One more question – according to your understanding of history the evil Jesus never lived outside of the imagination of the Grand Inquisitors, Crusaders etc. – yet this imaginary figure exerted a very widespread influence on the course of history – so how do you know that the Jesus that you prefer to imagine ever existed? The fact that his influence is widespread is no more evidence for his existence than is the influence of his evil counterpart

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dear Pharisee Friend,
            Regarding “Scripture which has Messiah riding on the clouds”

            “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations, and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
            [Daniel 7:13-14]

          • Matthew Perri Daniel 7:14 is talking about the people of Israel – that is the Scriptural interpretation according to verses 18 and 27

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Matthew Perri Did you notice that from Exodus 1:15 through 2:23 – the Jewish people are not called by the name “Sons of Israel” but rather “Hebrews”? even the names of Moses’ parents are noticeably omitted

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dear Pharisee Friend,
            While I could see how you might interpret “the saints” in Daniel 7:18 & 7:27 as meaning just “the people of Israel”…….
            I don’t understand your reasoning about the rest of Daniel 7:13-15 and 7:27. (nor do I see the relevance to your comments about Exodus 1:15 through 2:23 )

            7:13-15
            “one like a son of man”….”he”…”he”….” all peoples nations, and men of every language worshipped HIM. His dominion……”
            and in 7:27
            ‘HIS kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey HIM.”

            You are not saying that everyone will worship “the people of Israel”, are you?

          • Matthew Perri That you don’t see the relevance of my comments from Exodus 1:15 thru 2:23 – I hope to explain in the near future so please bear with me on that

            As for Daniel 7 – verses 15 thru 28 are the explanation of 1 thru 14. Each one of the beasts represents a nation and the son of man also represents a single nation. The word that you translated as worship does not necessarily mean worship it could just as easily mean serve as in Isaiah 60:12 (see also Isaiah 45:14) and the singular of verse 27 is referring to the nation or else it would contradict verse 18

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dear Pharisee Friend,
            You wrote QUOTE:…”the singular of verse 27 is referring to the nation or else it would contradict verse 18 ” of Daniel chapter 7.

            I see that verse 18 is fairly short – one sentence really, and the subject is “the saints of the Most High”. Not God, not God the Most High, not The Most High God. But rather, just “the saints” is the subject. This subject is being modified by the adjective phrase “of the Most High,” telling us whose saints they are. God is not the subject here in verse 18.

            In contrast,
            I see that verse 27 is two sentences, with two complete thoughts. The second sentence in verse 27 has nothing at all about “the saints” referred to in the first sentence of verse 27 and in verse 18. Rather, the second sentence in verse 27 is about HIM and HIS kingdom – God, or the messiah, that everyone will worship and obey.

          • Matthew Perri
            First of all the contradiction is about who receives the kingdom – in 18 its the saints so in 27 it ought to be the same and second – its not “saints of the Most High” – its “saintly exalted ones” – the word “high” is in the plural

          • Dear Pharisee Friend,
            You have made a valid criticism that “Christians” tend to “read Jesus into every page of the Tanach” when He is really not there. It’s true, some people do go overboard, even if they may have good intentions.
            Yet,
            I observe that Jews tend to read “the nation of Israel” into many places in the Tanach when it really isn’t there either Daniel 7 is an example.
            Neither the word “Israel,” nor even “Yahweh” appears in my Bible in Daniel chapter 7. I don’t dispute that God here is indeed Elohim / El-Shaddai / Yahweh, who is the God of Israel. But I don’t want to read things into the text.

            Likewise, in 7:25, “He (probably the Antichrist) will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and….. The saints will be handed over to him…..”

            So there is an obvious distinction between God the Most High and “his saints.” God is not going to be “handed over to him”, only “the saints” will be for a time.

            We should not automatically equate “his saints” with “the nation of Israel,” and then conflate that with what appears to be God or The Messiah, whom “ALL peoples, nations, and men of every language worshipped” [Daniel 7:14] I don’t see the nation of Israel worshipping itself here…..

          • TRM says:

            Matthew, there is no anti-Christ, because the holy people never had a Christ in the first place… It’s quite easy to put your theory in the Tanakh. the JW do the same with their other testament.

          • Dear TRM,
            So your only “bone of contention” with what I wrote is when I said QUOTE:
            “(probably the Antichrist)” ?
            A three-word “footnote” in parenthesis, beginning with the word “probably”?

            And so I can take your silence to mean you have no way to open your Tanach and refute anything else I wrote here?

        • Yes CP
          Yeshua of the true Apostles who knew Him personally – Matthew, John, and Peter (through Mark.)
          Not the “Christ ” of Paul the false apostle, and not the supposed teachings of Jesus written by Paul’s Gentile buddy Luke, who never knew Jesus personally.

          The real “Good Shepherd” is described by Matthew and John.
          The false shepherd is described by Luke – he abandons the flock defenseless in the open country to run around on his own, constantly looking for “lost sheep” supposedly, but not caring for the flock. And when he finally finds one, he runs off and brags about it. That is Luke’s false shepherd.

        • CP says:

          Matthew Perri,
          Yes, I agree Christians read Jesus into texts they shouldn’t just as Jews read National Israel into texts they shouldn’t. From my uneducated reading of the text, the “One like the son of man” is in fact a messianic figure, but acting as a representative (king) for the holy ones of the Most High.
          So IMHO, both you and R’B are correct

          • CP,
            I just checked my NIV concordance and found something interesting.
            In the entire Book of Daniel, the word “Israel” only appears 3 times, and the word “Yahweh” only appears 8 times – and all 11 of those words are in just one chapter, namely Daniel chapter 9…….

            Thanks for your input – it’s a little over my head. But I must say I still see no solid basis for equating “the holy ones of Most High” exclusively with National Israel.

          • Dina says:

            Matthew and CP, you are both wrong. In Daniel 7, the angel explains to Daniel what his vision means. You see, it wasn’t clear even to Daniel and he had to ask an angel to elucidate. Rabbi B. explains in clear and simple terms in a short article here:

            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/daniel-713/

          • Dina,
            Thank you for your input – I respect both your opinion and that of our Pharisee Friend.
            I’ve stated an obvious fact about the text of Tanakh, which anyone can verify. Someone like yourself could verify it very quickly, if you wanted to . You have been silent regarding this, so I interpret your silence as agreement that this fact is true.

            In the entire Book of Daniel, the word “Israel” only appears 3 times, and the word “Yahweh” only appears 8 times – and all 11 of those words are in just one chapter, namely Daniel chapter 9…….

          • Dina says:

            Matthew P., if you respect my opinion, you should answer my challenges instead of insisting I respond only to yours. Can you respond to the challenge of Daniel 7? I do not see the relevance of the number of times Israel and Hashem are mentioned.

            If you want to take this line of thought, how many times is The Messiah mentioned in the whole Tanach? Perhaps you should consider that.

          • Matthew Perri There are other ways to speak of the nation – such as “your (Daniel’s) nation – which other saints are described in Scripture as inheriting the kingdom? (Daniel 7:18/ Isaiah 60:12)

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • bible819 says:

            Dina,

            Is the Ancient of Days the Father?

            His raiment was as white as snow, and the hair of His head was like clean wool;

            Who is Daniel describing?

          • Pharisee Friend, you said,
            “There are other ways to speak of the nation – such as “your (Daniel’s) nation – “.
            Yes, true.
            But I don’t see “your nation” or any other such phrase pointing to the nation in Daniel chapter 7.
            Did I miss something?

            (Dina, you haven’t articulated any “challenge” for Daniel chapter 7, which does not contain the words Israel or Hashem – yet you “do not see the relevance of the number of times Israel and Hashem are mentioned.”)

          • Matthew Perri
            My point by showing that there are other ways to refer to the nation is to negate your insinuation that the book of Daniel is not focused on Israel – As it relates to Daniel 7 – I challenge you to show me any other group of people that the prophets predict will inherit any sort of position of leadership in the Messianic age

          • Pharisee Friend, you said
            ….”which other saints are described in Scripture as inheriting the kingdom? (Daniel 7:18/ Isaiah 60:12) ”

            I don’t have a quick answer from Scripture here- it may be you have a point, or at least part of a point.

            Yet at a broader level, we both agree that God’s relationship with His people is frequently likened to a husband and wife. I think the most important part of “the kingdom” is that The King is there. If a wife has a strong desire for marriage, a family and a nice home – you could say for “inheriting the kingdom” – but isn’t really that excited about having her husband around and doesn’t want to mention him…. do you think the husband would be happy?

          • Matthew Perri
            Where do you see from Daniel 7 that Israel doesn’t want to mention God?

          • CP says:

            Dina ,
            Below I’ve quoted the last two sentences of R’B’s Blog on Daniel 7 and will prove to you it is not as cut and dry as you think.

            R,B wrote;
            “while the son of man in Daniel’s vision represents Israel.”

            Comment:
            Yes, the son of man represents Israel; ‘literally’!

            R,B wrote;
            “The Christian assertion that this passage refers to the Messiah is plainly refuted by scripture itself.”

            Comment;
            Scripture itself does not negate the holy ones having “one like the son of man” as a representative.
            (I’m not arguing for either interpretation, just pointing out both are viable)

          • Dina says:

            If you concede that our interpretation is viable, then you must accept the reasonableness of our position that the messiah doesn’t have to arrive on the clouds (the whole vision being a metaphor), isn’t that right?

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Regarding my “insinuation that the book of Daniel is not focused on Israel ”

            To answer properly, I need to know what you mean by a book of Tanakh being “focused on Israel.”

            Do you think that Obadiah, Nahum, Jonah, Genesis, and about half of the Kethuvim Books are “focused on Israel”, or not, or less focused than other Books like Exodus….
            Do you think that every book has a singular focus, or could some parts be “focused on Israel” and other parts no……

            Regarding our second question, Isaiah 56 comes to mind.

          • Matthew Perri Every book of Tanach is focused on Israel – the Tanach is a letter from God to Israel – sometimes God speaks about other nations in the letter but He is always talking to Israel

            And Isaiah 56 has Israel inheriting the kingdom allowing others to join – see verse 3 – in other words the saints are Israel together with those righteous gentiles who join Israel

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            So to confirm, when you say “…..Every book of Tanach is focused on Israel…..”
            what you mean more specifically is that
            God “… is always talking TO Israel. ”

            So you are saying “focused on” means “talking to.”

            Do you believe that God is talking ONLY to Israel in every page of every book of Tanach? Or is God sometimes talking to others but He wants to send a CC to Israel so Israel can hear everything He is saying to others?

            Also, you are not saying that every book of Tanach is ABOUT Israel, are you? (rather like some “Christians” believe every book is about Jesus….)

          • Dina says:

            Excuse me for sticking my nose in, Matthew, but what in the Hebrew Bible leads you to believe anyone besides Israel is being addressed?

          • Matthew Perri God is only talking to Israel – in a direct sense – on every page of Tanach – even when we have a prophecy directed at another nation(such as Nahum) – it is as a father tells his son – “this is what I had told the people of Nineveh some time ago, I think you could learn from this”

            It is good and right for other nations to read this book and learn God’s will – but unless they recognize that they are listening in to a conversation between God and Israel – they will not be reading the book in context

            Its not “about” Israel – the book is about God – it is directed to Israel

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina,
            I respect you and our Pharisee Friend and others here, and I am thankful for the chance to have meaningful substantive dialogue here.

            As I look at the text of the Book of Job….
            It seems to me that if you believe the Book of Job is somehow written or spoken specifically “to Israel”, or that it’s “about Israel” or Jews, Hebrews, Israelites, the nation or people of Israel……. I think you are delusional. There is nothing in the book to even remotely suggest that.

            The fact that it is included in the Tanach indicates to me that God wanted Israel to have a CC copy of this manifestation of Yahweh, which has nothing to do with Israel. (Please quote me chapter and verse if I missed something in Job)

          • Dina says:

            Can you show me, using Scriptural evidence, who the book of Job is written for and how you know this?

            Is this the only book in the Hebrew Bible that you feel this way about (1 out of 24)?

            Also, why do you think this book is more divinely inspired than the other books that you reject? (I seem to remember that the only books whose authority you accept are the First Five Books and a couple of others, maybe Psalms?)

          • LarryB says:

            Matthew
            I felt this way for years. Can you give an example “chapter and verse” that Job was written to “?” And Israel was just copied.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Yes, I would agree, however once you step away from a literal interpretation, many things become possible.
            “Coming in the clouds is likely a metaphor for Judgement”

          • Dina says:

            The angel explains the metaphor. He makes it clear it’s a metaphor and not to be taken literally. Therefore, however you want to explain it, it’s a reasonable position for Jews to say that it’s not talking about the messiah coming on the clouds.

            You had in an earlier comment said that the Bible shows the messiah coming on the clouds and riding on a donkey. We’re saying, no it doesn’t. And I’m saying, that’s a reasonable position. I hope that clarifies.

          • Dina,
            I will let the text of Job speak for itself. It’s basically about Yahweh and one man, Job, and a few other people around Job. He was not a Jew, a Hebrew, or an Israelite – being Uz, he might have been a Semite, but we don’t even know that for sure. He lived in The East – not Israel.

            There is nothing at all, even remotely, about Israel or the people or nation of Israel in this book. There is nothing to indicate it was written “to Israel.” That is your fabrication. God never said that he ONLY speaks to Israel, and in Scripture are numerous examples of God speaking to others besides “Israel.” There is nothing further to argue – you are just making something up out thin air, and I don’t have time for silliness. May God bless you as you open your Tanach and think for yourself.

          • Matthew Perri Yes – God spoke to Job and his friends who were not Jewish – but He told His people – this is what I spoke to Job and His friends – this was their conversation – study it . God did NOT give this book to any other nation – as no other nation even claimed that they got this book from God or one of His prophets – we did

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            Matthew, it’s very easy to make up a strawman argument and then destroy it. I never said God only speaks to the Jews or the Jewish people. I said that the target audience of the Torah is the Jewish people.

            Now if you want to believe otherwise, that’s fine with me. But if you want to argue that the Torah is not addressing the Jewish people but other nations as well, and you want to convince me, you will have to do better than that.

            And if you think I’m being silly (from the man who reads the clouds, no less!) and don’t want to talk to me anymore, that’s also fine. In that case, no hard feelings and have a nice life!

          • LarryB says:

            Matthew
            Wow, MAtthew said it I believe that settles it. You dont have time Matthew?

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I’m not really disagreeing with anything you are saying here- but you are sort of assuming some things about the past that we really don’t know, or can’t know for sure. I’m sure we would agree Job is a very ancient book- maybe around the time of Abraham, or before.

            This book is not about ANY “nation”. It’s about one individual foreign non-Jewish man living in a foreign country in The East, Job, and his dealings with God, is what I see. It has nothing to do with Israel or the Jewish nation, based on the text. Job was a follower of Yahweh. Jews are followers of Yahweh. So the Jewish nation adopted this foreign book and preserved it, as part of the testimony of their shared God Yahweh.

            Prophets are “all knowing not all-telling”. I’m sure God knew this book would wind up in the hand of the Jews, who would be the unique nation that would preserve it until today. There might have been other families, like Job’s family perhaps, or clans, or nations that had the Book of Job thousands of years ago but lost it, or ceased to exist – we don’t know for sure. No one is denying Israel the unique role of preserving the Text – but let’s not read things into the text that are not there. The book is not about Israel in any way – it’s about Yahweh and one non-Jewish man, Job.

          • Matthew Perri You decided that the Jewish nation “adopted” a foreign book – did it occur to you to ask the Jewish nation where they “found” the book?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Yes, what you say here makes perfect sense.
            I think the most appropriate first step in that direction (in the interest of showing respect and being productive) would be to do my own basic homework on the texts, to see what they say and don’t say. Then we could have a more informed, fruitful, interesting discussion on how to interpret those agreed-on facts.

            Our early written history shows us lawless men like Noah, Job, and Abraham sacrificing burnt offerings to God. But they completely disregard God’s Holy Law given through His servant Moses for all Israel to obey. They seem to be completely clueless about any distinction between burnt offerings, sin offerings, guilt offerings, fellowship offerings, and freewill offerings. It’s almost like they never even bothered to pick up a Torah ! How dare they bring shame on the whole nation of Israel with such lawlessness……
            Oh, wait a minute….
            Actually, none of them were Jewish, Israel didn’t exist yet, and they all lived hundreds of years before the Sinai event…..

          • Matthew Perri What is your point? BTW – how do you explain Genesis 7:2?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            I’ve been following the conversation on the Tanach written exclusively to Jews vs the world. Ironically Yeshua is on the side of exclusively to Jews!
            ahhh….. the first argument in early Christianity. Seems as though Paul won, but what you see is not always true.

          • Dina says:

            This is the most baffling argument I’ve ever seen. It’s irrelevant how Paul or Jesus saw this. Anyone can see for themselves. What language is Tanach written in? The language of the Jews. Who is the target audience? Even a cursory reading will show that it’s the Jews. Who canonized and preserved the texts of Hebrew Bible? The Jews.

            The Torah’s truth is for everybody, but non-Jews need to come to the Jews for the proper understanding.

          • Dina I would modify your last sentence to read “for the proper context”

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Noah, Job, and Abraham were not Jewish, Hebrew, or Israelites, and they all lived before Israel even existed, hundreds of years before the Sinai event…..
            They wrote Scripture, and worshipped, without the Law of Moses or National Israel.
            Do you agree?

            There is no explanation in Genesis for a lot of the procedures for sacrificed burnt offerings, or which animals were clean [Genesis 7:2] I don’t want to open up a can of worms, but I guess you might call that “oral tradition”…… yikes. I’m very sure Noah was not reading a Torah scroll……

          • Matthew Perri Noah, Job and Abram were not Jewish (Abraham did enter into the covenant) – But where did you get the notion that they wrote Scripture? Who told you that they wrote any part of the books we have today?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            You make me laugh sometimes! Are you play’n or do you really misunderstood that bad? Oh, is the elitist attitude for real or are you just mess’n around?

          • Dina says:

            CP, what do you think I misunderstood badly and what did I write that is elitist? I assure I am serious.

          • Dina says:

            Assure you. Sorry, I sent that without first checking for errors.

          • Pharisee Friend,
            “Genesis 5:1,
            6:9
            10:1
            11:10
            11:27
            25:12
            25:19
            And why would anyone think Job didn’t write the book of Job?

          • Matthew Perri The Hebrew word “toldos” is incorrectly translated as “chronicles” – in fact the book “1st and 2nd Chronicles” is called “divrei hayamim” in the text – not “toldos” – so aside from your first quote none of these are relevant – the text is saying “these are the children of … ”

            It is only your first quote (Genesis 5:1) which has a word that can be translated as “book” in it. Which is still irrelevant – let us assume (for argument’s sake) that there were books that Moses copied from – but who guided him in the process? and who else has a record of those books? It is obvious that God guided him – essentially creating a new book for the education of Israel. An alternate way of reading Genesis 5:1 is that the following verses are a segment of their own from the larger book – but not that there was an earlier book that Moses was copying from.

            About Job – why would you think he did write it? Do you think that Ruth wrote Ruth because the title is her name? Or that Samuel wrote the book of Samuel – which is impossible because most of the book speaks about the time after his death. The title of the book tells you what the book is about not necessarily who the author is – there is nothing in the text to indicate who wrote the book of Job. You still didn’t answer why not ask the only nation in the world who possesses the book – where they got it from

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            While I see your point about Ruth and Samuel, and it has relevance to this discussion, that line of thinking can be taken to an extreme. There are a number of books that represent a man’s life work, which bear his name, but he doesn’t explicitly state in the book itself “I am X and I wrote this.”

            Samuel may have started “his book” and others finished it, and completed information about his birth. I’m sure Ruth was heavily involved in writing the book that bears her name, based on the content of the text.

            Would you want to question whether Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther “wrote” the books that bear their names?

            Jonah never specifically claimed that he wrote his book.
            I don’t think you want to argue “there is no evidence” that Jonah wrote Jonah, or Joshua wrote Joshua. I use the term “write” a bit loosely, as in “the person was the primary author and editor. ” (Moses didn’t record his own birth, that would have been Miriam probably….)

            The Major and Minor prophets generally have one book that bears their name, and I don’t think you want to question that they “wrote” those books, do you?

            (Likewise, I think Matthew, Mark, and John wrote the books that bear their names. They didn’t blow a trumpet and announce themselves like Paul the false apostle, because they wanted to put the focus on the Messiah, where it belongs, not on themselves.)

            Based on the text of Job, I see no good reason to believe that Job did not write it, barring the last verse about his death.

          • Matthew Perri You are working with a completely unfounded assumption that if a book bears a person’s name in its title that it was written by that person – I know that Moses wrote the Five Books because it says so in the text – the same applies to the Book of Esther (it explicitly says that she wrote it together with Mordechai) – some books begin with the words “divrei so and so” which can be read as an indication of authorship – but many of the books have no such introduction (such as Jonah) and there is no reason to believe that he was the one who wrote the book that bears his name – the naming of a book is not a mark of authorship. You still didn’t tell me why you refuse to ask the people who possessed these books for all these years – where they got them

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            We can take your quote, and substitute “Moses” with MATTHEW.
            ……let us assume (for argument’s sake) that there were books that MATTHEW copied from (LIKE GOSPEL OF MARK0 – but who guided him in the process? and who else has a record of those books? It is obvious that God guided him – essentially creating a new book for the education of Israel.

          • Pharisee Friend,
            You are arguing from the exceptions rather than the rule when it comes to personal names attached to books in Tanach. Eponymy was the rule for prophets, but it seems to me those authors living in The East just dived into the narrative without formally identifying introducing themselves.

            I just realized a pattern.
            Ezra & Esther – Persia (so we agree Esther WAS one of the 2 main authors)
            Ruth – Moab
            Job- Uz
            Daniel – Babylon
            Jonah – Nineveh

            Do you see this pattern of cultural difference?

          • Pharisee Friend,

            We have three wise men in The East.
            .1) Job, “the greatest man among all the people of the East.” [Job 1:3]
            .2) “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed” [Daniel 10:11]
            .3) Jonah, who kicked off the greatest revival in recorded history in Nineveh.

            They all had intense personal relationships with Yahweh. There were miracles, supernatural signs and wonders, visions, and mighty acts that brought glory to God. Each of them produced a single book, containing his life work, with his name on it.
            But,
            They didn’t observe “proper protocol” in opening their books by identifying themselves immediately. They just began by writing a narrative. In other words, they didn’t show proper ID at the proper time, according to the cultural expectations of certain people.
            Therefore,
            We’ll just seize ownership of their life work, and give them no credit, or acknowledgement that they even wrote their own books. We’ll say; “there is no evidence” because….
            Why exactly?

            Also, the history of the Patriarchs in Genesis is not a mystical collection of legends, myths and fables, supernaturally downloaded to Moses alone at Sinai simply for the education of Israel. The Patriarchs were not illiterate Neanderthals, who lived in “prehistoric” times.

  4. Dina says:

    Following.

  5. “Jesus’ warning not to store up treasures on earth is found….”

    i think judas had a money bag. can’t remember the verse.

  6. edward says:

    “One like the son of man” is in fact a messianic figure, but acting as a representative (king) for the holy ones of the Most High.”

    when i read the text, he receives kingdom . in daniel , the “one like a son of man” does not bring judgement, does not act like messianic figure, he simply receives kingdom.

  7. Pharisee Friend,
    This is like elephant tracks running though the middle of Genesis.
    https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%ef%bb%bfclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-31585

    Your response is like someone taking a magnifying glass to analyze each track and see if the elephant’s nails had been clipped or not. (analyzing one word out of context.)
    https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%ef%bb%bfclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-31586

    • Dina,
      As to your challenge to “prove from Scripture” that Job wrote Job….
      The burden of proof is on you.
      His book was accepted into Tanach without your artificial litmus test of a formal introduction or declaration of authorship.
      His name is on the book, he’s the main character, and he’s speaking. We should expect that he wrote, or approved the text, unless proved otherwise.

      Some books in Tanach were written by only 1 person, but many have some degree of collaboration- maybe just a verse or two about the “name character’s” death, like in Job. Maybe a co-writer, like Esther and Mordecai, or maybe Ruth and Naomi or Boaz…. There are obvious exceptions like birth and death, or before and after birth and death, as in Samuel, or quoting someone else. Or someone writing in the margins of Moses’ monologue in Deuteronomy that “Moses was the most humble man on earth”…. I wonder 😉

    • Hi, I’m Jeff Bozos The Fifth, owner of Behemoth.

      Ages ago, around the dawn of digital time, my great-great-grandfather was slogging through the murky depths of the digital forest primeval. Somehow, he acquired the exclusive worldwide rights to the all the music of “Elvis Presley,” and today we still hold those rights. I forgot the exact history of this product, but I think it was one of our Avatars, like Bugs Bunny, Max Headroom, and Siri.

      There are some people today who insist that “Elvis Presley” was a real living person, who wrote and sang his own songs. They could be right, but there is really no evidence to support that theory. You can listen to every one of his songs, and never once does he identify himself and claim; “I wrote this song and I am singing this song.” But really, what difference does it make? It’s good product, we own it, so come to us and buy it. What difference does it make if “Elvis Presley” was a real person or not?

      • Matthew Perri No one ever said that Job didn’t exist – the point is that his story, like the story of so many others would have been forgotten had it not been for someone who chose to wrote it down – the story we have was written by someone – there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence that it was Job himself – and that is the version of the story we have today

        You still didn’t say why you refuse to ask the Jewish people where they got the book?

        1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • Pharisee Friend,
          The books of Job and Jonah are really just the tips of the iceberg. I believe the bigger portion below the water is your view of the Book of Genesis.

          No one here is denying Israel’s unique role as God’s one “witness nation,” in the past, present, and future. Yet, In the Beginning, before Israel existed, we have about 2000 years of RECORDED human history, carefully written down in Genesis, where Elohim / Yahweh / El-Shaddai was doing things with other people who knew Him personally.

          If you sit down and read through Genesis, it becomes obvious that it’s like a family diary of God’s people and their relationship with Him, starting with Adam, and recording the names of the people and events around the Patriarchs who did the writing.

          For 20 years I firmly believed that “Moses wrote the Torah” without ever questioning or stopping to think about it. But since I recently took a number of weeks to carefully read through the entire Torah myself, I have a greater understanding than before of what is in Torah.

          In big-picture terms, I think many people see “the first 4 books” as a “divine download” given to Moses alone at Sinai, with Deuteronomy as a review, to complete Israel’s education before they “graduate” and move on to the Promised Land. But I now see some big problems with this general view.

          This discredits the Patriarchs and the written historical record they worked so hard to pass on for 2000 years, all the way to Joseph, Prime Minister of Egypt. It makes “In the Beginning”, the Book of Genesis, into a book of mythology, fables, and legends, given mystically to Moses simply to “educate Israel.” To borrow your word, a “story” – for children. (You apply that to others like Job and Jonah as well.) Are you saying that when children become adults, they can put aside these “children’s stories” and focus on what is really important- Moses and The Law….. ?

          I see the history of God’s word more like a relay race, while you may see it more like the original marathon, with only one runner.
          Instead of seeing The Written Testimony in Genesis (and Job) as a baton that was passed to Moses and the Nation of Israel for you to carry, many have been trained to think that Moses created the baton of The Torah on Sinai, with no need to share or pass it on.

          Maybe underlying this unconsciously is an “Evolutionary” mindset, so you don’t believe Genesis 5:1 is true. Maybe you don’t really believe Adam and the other Patriarchs could read and write. You may think of them as just “pre-mosaic” i.e. “Prehistoric” illiterate caveman passing on oral tribal legends, and so God had to send Moses to clean up their mess……

          • CP says:

            Matthew,
            I agree the Torah was not a mystical cosmic download from God into the consciousness of Moses, nor did Moses engage in ‘automatic handwriting’ while possessed by a spirit. However with the long lifespans of the Patriarchs I doubt writing was considered paramount since you could actually talk to the guy that was there 500 years ago. Not to say there wasn’t written records as notes to back up oral traditions.

            A little research on oral tradition is fascinating to anyone interested the Bible. I was blown away by the accuracy, and in some cases the superiority of oral tradition over written. But when you think about how a lot of us know the same songs word for word and how oral tradition incorporates rhyme and rhythm it becomes apparent the idea of accuracy is not far fetched.

            I trust the stories Moses wrote already existed in multiple forms, writing, oral, shorthand notes and Moses under the supervision of God complied these stories. As time went on there became various lines of text, so the Masorites thought it best to standardize the text. However what many don’t realize or want to admit is with the addition of vowels to the text, meanings become more fixed as the editors used their interpretation in many cases as to the meaning of words, thus possibly changing the meaning of the text. In addition they switched from paleo Hebrew to the modern square text Hebrew. Therefore the language took on a more phonetic importantance than the previous text which was picture based giving expanding meanings to words through the use of letter (picture) combinations.

            Never once do we see Yeshua call into question the Written Torah and by his actions he endorses a Oral Torah. However we do see Yeshua accusing religious leaders of playing fast and loose with the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah we have now is not purely the traditions of the ancients, rather the decisions of men reacting to a changing society and sometimes personal agendas, passed off as the commands of God. This is not exclusively a Christian postion, this is an internal family feud amongst the different branches of Judaism. Therefore we argue and fight over meaningless things which robs us of the energy which could be used for meaningful things.

          • CP,
            “Never once do we see Yeshua call into question the Written Torah.”
            True.
            However we DO see Him distinguishing between Moses and “In the Beginning.”
            as in,
            regarding divorce in Matthew 19,
            “Moses wrote this command for you because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” (Moses in Deuteronomy 24 vs. Genesis 2)
            and
            “Although Moses gave your circumcision – although it was not really from Moses, but from the Patriarchs-……..”

            These two quotes alone are enough to show that Jesus did not see Moses as the original “author” or Genesis, but rather that Moses copied earlier existing tradition.

            Interesting note on circumcision- that funny comment about God being ready to kill Moses, and even then he wouldn’t circumcise his own sons, his gentile wife had to do it for him, and touch his feet with the foreskin…… And no one was circumcised for 40 years in the desert….

          • Matthew Perri I don’t give a hang what Yeshua did or didn’t say – but for you to say that he agreed with your theory about a prior text for Genesis on the basis of his comment of circumcision shows that you have no understanding of my position – every child in my community would say the same thing – that circumcision was given to Abraham – what does this have to do with a text? Is text the only way to give a commandment?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Matthew,
            Yes, you are right; Yeshua is contrasting, expanding and explaining Torah just as expected from a Messiah.

            Your comment on circumcision is more than just interesting; its phenomenal! The ramifications are staggering when one considerers a doctrine of an unbroken line of verbal transmission and obedience to the commands of God. We are not even one generation away from Moses and already the commands of God are not passed to the next generation or if they were, they were ignored.

            I agree with your position of Moses drawing on multiple sources. One doesn’t need a degree in textual criticism to see the different documents patched together. This doesn’t mean the Text is suspect or corrupt. It just means God guided Moses to perserve the truth. Today’s Torah is infallible but to say it is inerrant IMHO is stretching it to far, like the KJO adherents do with their text.

          • Matthew Perri Let us assume you are right (there is not a shred of evidence – but for argument’s sake) The patriarch’s kept little note pads and wrote down sketches of events – still and all – You agree that Moses decided which parts to include, which parts to exclude, how to weave them together as a seamless whole – or do you not agree? If you do – then what was the guiding principle? What made Moses decide which pieces to keep and which pieces to scuttle? Or what guided him on how to weave them together? What factor was paramount in his mind? – let me word this question differently – did Moses have a specific target audience in mind when he redacted his books and if yes what was that audience?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Looking at the text of Genesis, it’s obvious to me it’s a carefully kept written record over 2000 years, from Adam to Joseph. It might have been still a collection of documents which Moses pulled together – or not. Personally, my best guess would be that the Prime Minister of Egypt put the Book of Genesis together in it’s entirety, and called it “in the Beginning.” I believe this was “The Testimony” referred to in Exodus 16, before Sinai.

            With Joseph’s foresight, I’m sure he read God’s word to Abraham, giving the prophecy about being slaves in a foreign country for 400 years. So Joseph made the book ready. And when Moses went to the elders of Israel, they has a Scriptural basis for believing God had really appeared to Moses to deliver them from Egypt. Why else would they just believe Moses so quickly?

          • Matthew Perri
            This is simply anachronistic speculation – you are working with the Protestant reformation’s concept “Sola Scriptura” as if everyone believed it throughout history – fact is no one heard of the concept until the reformation – the concept is actually self-contradictory – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/faith-structure/

          • Pharisee Friend,
            this has nothing at all to do with “with the Protestant reformation’s concept “Sola Scriptura”.
            I’m just observing certain facts in the text.
            Abraham was literally the great-grandfather of Joseph, Prime Minister of Egypt. Abraham recorded a specific prophecy about 4oo years of slavery in a foreign country. After 400 years in Egypt, the people immediately believed Moses about the Burning Bush.
            You agree these are facts from the text, right?

            In summary, here is what makes the most sense to me.
            .1) Joseph completed the final work on Genesis. Moses copied it.
            .2) Moses was the “point man” for the next 3 books, with significant input and second witness verification from Aaron, and probably some from Miriam, his older siblings.
            .3) Moses wrote Deuteronomy alone, after they died, giving Aaron no credit for anything, except for falsely blaming Aaron for his own shortcoming in leadership, causing the “Golden Calf” incident.

            A fact from the text: Aaron’s name appears over 350 times in Tanach – but only 4 times in Deuteronomy, and two of those times refer to Aaron’s death.

          • Matthew Perri Your idea that without a written text they would not have believed Moses is nothing but a retrojection of Sola Scriptura – who wrote Numbers 12?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend
            Do you see Genesis 15:13-16 as a prophecy, partly fulfilled by Joseph (the fourth generation) when he brought Jacob’s body back to bury him in Abraham’s grave?
            Genesis 48:29-50:14
            And Joseph knew this prophecy, and confirmed it in Genesis 50:24-26. Joseph knew his part in preparing for 400 years in the future. So any observant Hebrews in Egypt, who paid attention to the closing words of their Scripture, would be waiting for the salvation promised by through God through Abraham and Joseph.
            These are not my own opinions, the words are quite clear in the text.

            Who better to finalize the finishing touches on the existing Scripture, In the Beginning, setting the Scriptural foundation of the nation of Israel, than the literal son of Israel, great grandson of Abraham, Prime Minister of Egypt?

          • Matthew Perri
            This is flatly ridiculous – who needs texts these people all saw each other (Jacob and Joseph) and in order to know what the “fourth generation” means you need to read Exodus 6

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Regarding Numbers 12 and the “Golden Calf” incident,
            Can you show me somewhere in Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers where God blamed Aaron, rebuked Aaron, or disciplined Aaron in any way for either of these incidents? Did Aaron suffer any negative consequences personally for these things? I am not aware of any.

            Even though the Scripture doesn’t specifically state what Aaron’s sin was regarding his role in the second Meribah incident, where Moses struck the rock twice, God knew, and rebuked both Aaron and Moses for this, denying both of them entrance to the Promised Land.

          • Matthew Perri We discussed this one already and it seems that in your dictionary what Moses wrote (Deut. 9:20) is not Scripture – so I can’t help you – I trust Moses because God trusted him

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Did you read all the way to Exodus 6:9?
            Look at the contrast.
            Exodus 4:29-31 and then Exodus 6:2-9

          • Matthew Perri What does this have to do with the four generations?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            “In the fourth generation YOUR descendants will come back here” appears in Genesis 15:16. This is God speaking to Abram.

            The words “In the fourth generation” don’t appear anywhere in Exodus 6. Could you explain what you are referring to here? And if you think Exodus 6 somehow “overrides” the record in Genesis of the words of God to Abram, and Jacob and Joseph’s actions and testimony, could you elaborate on that too?

          • Matthew Perri It is obvious – Exodus 6 gives us a genealogy – it is clear that those who left Egypt and entered the land (such as Pinehas) were four generations removed from the ones who came down to Egypt

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Regarding Deuteronomy 9:20,
            Did Moses say that God heard his prayer – or did Moses then change the subject?
            Is there any other single verse in the entire rest of the Torah that would also support your assertion that God blamed Aaron for the Golden Calf?

          • Matthew Perri Why is it significant? Why do we need to know if God heard Moses’ prayer? and why is one verse not enough to settle the matter? 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            .1) Context – the previous 2 verses, Deuteronomy 9:18-19.
            ….”.he was angry enough to destroy you. But again the LORD listened to me.”
            But Moses neglected to state that God listened to him in the next verse, when he prayed for Aaron. And then Moses changed the subject.

            .2) This one and only verse is inconsistent with the entire narrative given in the rest of the Torah.

            .3) This is the voice of Moses, writing a letter at the end of his life about his own memory of what he thought God’s feelings were toward Aaron at a particular point in time 40 years previously. This is not the voice of God, recorded by Moses. This is not some sort of Law or commandment. Moses is speaking, about himself and his feelings about God’s feelings 40 years ago. God is not speaking here.

          • Matthew Perri The subject of that passage is Israel’s angering of God – there is no change of subject – and Moses had just said I prayed for those who sinned and God answered – he adds as an afterthought – that Aaron was included in that prayer

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            We agree that this is the voice of Moses, not God’s voice recorded by Moses, right?

          • Matthew Perri Moses talking inspired by God – directed by God which words to write which words to leave unwritten

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            This sound an awful lot like different wording, or a paraphrase, of the mantra of Paul the false apostle, “All Scripture is God-breathed.”…….

            You make no distinction between God’s voice recorded by Moses and Moses’ own voice talking about his own feelings?

          • Pharisee Friend you said QUOTE:
            “Exodus 6 gives us a genealogy – it is clear that those who left Egypt and entered the land (such as Pinehas) were four generations removed from the ones who came down to Egypt ”

            I’m still a little confused how this applies, although I think you appear to have a point, perhaps as “multiple fulfillment.”

            I see Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas.

            We agree that the fourth generation from Abraham goes Isaac, Jacob, Joseph – right?
            Do we agree that the prophecy in Genesis 15:16 is fulfilled at the end of Genesis? (“also”)?

          • Matthew Perri The fourth generation shall return here is NOT referring to Jacob’s children going to bury him – that is not called “return” and the fourth generation obviously means the fourth generation counting from the generation taht descended into Egypt – so we have no agreement

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Thank you for enlightening me that
            “the fourth generation obviously means the fourth generation counting from the generation that descended into Egypt .”

            Yes I DO agree that this is A meaning, and almost assuredly the PRIMARY meaning. However, that does not mean it is the ONLY meaning.

            Joseph WAS Abraham’s great-grandson, which IS the ‘fourth generation” also. You could call this simply a coincidence, and refuse to give God any glory for it if you want to. But it is true. And I choose to give God the glory in this relatively small detail as well. It makes sense – unless you feel the need to automatically reject the entire idea of multiple fulfillment because you have a theological ax to grind…..

          • Matthew Perri I have no benefit of rejecting or accepting your interpretation – what theological significance (axe to grind) do you see in it? How does it support your speculations about the authorship of the text?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I see is as one example, (among others,) of multiple fulfillment of prophecy.
            So I’m glad we don’t disagree about this, and you don’t simply dismiss the entire concept as wrong, just because some overzealous “Christians” may have gone overboard sometimes on certain points.

        • Pharisee Friend,
          Regarding who wrote Job,
          you said
          “the story we have was written by someone – there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence that it was Job himself”

          I say
          there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence that it WASN’T Job himself. (other than the verse about his death of course.)

          It seems our opinions are different regarding what constitutes “evidence.” In an effort to resolve this dilemma, do we agree that there is an evident cultural tendency in the books from “The East” to start off with a narrative, rather than a formal introduction like the books from Israel and Judah?

          https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%ef%bb%bfclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-31597

          https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%ef%bb%bfclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-31608

          https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%ef%bb%bfclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-31611

          • Matthew Perri You are starting with an assumption that the author writes his name as the title of the book – where did you get that idea? And you still haven’t answered why you refuse to ask those who got the book in the first place

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I count about 23 books in Tanach identified by one personal name.
            Do you believe ANY of these people were the “primary” author behind ANY of these books? Not that they penned every single word under divine dictation, but rather they are the main “human author” and it’s basically their voice, their words, their story, sometimes speaking for God?

            Or are you starting with an assumption that the author NEVER writes his name as the title of the book ?

          • Matthew Perri
            In some cases – yes (the name of the book is the name of the author) in some cases no – I never said that the name of the book is evidence that this person did NOT write the book

          • Pharisee Friend,
            RE: about 23 Tanach books,
            “In some cases – yes (the name of the book is the name of the author) in some cases no”.

            On what basis are you deciding these cases? Based on what evidence? Is it essential for you that the author start his work by formally introducing and identifying himself – which the writers of the Books from The East didn’t do?

          • Matthew Perri I don’t believe the books appeared in a vacuum – they just were found on the dead shelves of a library – the books were always alive in the life of our nation and our nation is called God’s witness – why do you have no interest in knowing what that witness says? I trust the witness that God appointed and that witness tells me who authored each of the books

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I DO have a great “interest in knowing what that witness says.”
            Maybe we could start from the “other end.”

            Of the approximately 23 Tanach books identified by one person’s name, in which of these cases do you believe the name characters “wrote their own books,” and why?
            And
            Do you have a “Scriptural” basis, in the text of Torah itself, for the claim that Moses wrote “In the Beginning” (Genesis) – and if so, what is it?

          • Matthew Perri
            Deuteronomy 31:24, Joshua 1:7,8
            The reason I believe anyone wrote any of these books is because of the testimony of the witness – simple

          • Pharisee Friend,
            It appears to me “This Book of the Law” in this case means The Book of Deuteronomy, (the literal meaning of which is “Second Law” I believe….). I don’t see this as conclusive evidence.
            Even if it is referring to Torah, it doesn’t mean Moses is the original or only author – but rather that he “wrote it out” – as in he copied the parts he didn’t personally write into one scroll…. Is this all you have?

          • Matthew Perri That’s alot more than you have for any of your speculations

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I understand you are saying that, based on the text of Torah, your belief that Moses wrote Genesis rest entirely on your (traditional) interpretation of one passage Moses wrote at the end of his life, after Joshua was already chosen to succeed him to lead Israel (Deuteronomy 31). Aaron, Miriam, and all other potential witnesses for this hypothetical claim were already dead, except Joshua and Caleb.

            Genesis contains the history of the creation of the world, and 2000 years of human history, from Adam to Joseph, and ends hundreds of years before Moses was born. But you give Moses all the credit for writing it because……

          • Matthew Perri I don’t accept the Protestant dictum “Sola Scriptura” (a non-Scriptural concept) – so I don’t need a verse to support my position – the same witness that God appointed to tell me that these books are authentic tells me who authored them and that is enough for me – Even if I were to believe Sola Scriptura – one verse from the one who God called the “trustworthy one of His household” trumps all of your speculations and suspicions

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • LarryB says:

            Matthew Perry
            are you a minister?

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Yahweh said “Have them make a chest of acacia wood….” Exodus 25:10

            “Then Yahweh said to Moses, ‘See I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri……to make… the ark of the Testimony….. Exodus 31:1, 6, 7

            “Then Moses said to the Israelites, ‘See, Yahweh has chosen Bezalel son of Uri….” Exodus 35:30

            “Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood”… Exodus 37:1

            Do we agree that BEZALEL made the ark of the Testimony, AFTER Moses brought down the tablets the second time [Exodus 34] and it was YAHWEH’s idea?

          • Matthew Perri Where were the tablets from the time Moses brought them down from the mountain until he put them in Bezalel’s box? (about 6 months)

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Wherever it was (for example a temporary box that Moses may have made….) they did not remain in this temporary place for 40 years, but rather they were put in Bezalel’s Box, and would have remained in Bezalel’s Box at the end of Moses’ life. Would you agree?

          • Matthew Perri The tablets would not have been in Moses’ box at the end of Moses’ life – rather they would have been in Bezalel’s box

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Parable of the wedding suit

            On his deathbed with a friend, Noses remembers the details of his wedding 40 years ago.
            Let’s listen in…..

            FRIEND: You sure had a glorious wedding, Noses!

            NOSES: Actually, it was hard – I spent a lot of money to buy my wedding suit.

            FRIEND: I was there, and I have pictures too – Armani, tailor made in Italy as I remember. But didn’t your father buy you that Armani wedding suit?

            NOSES: No, I bought my own wedding suit.

            FRIEND: That expensive Armani suit in the pictures we all have?

            NOSES: Here is the receipt – I paid cash for it.

            FRIEND: Hmmmm….. Walmart – fruit of the loom, t-shirt and briefs…..

            NOSES: I paid for it, and I was wearing it at the wedding.

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I agree with you about Bezalel’s box holding the tablets at the end of Moses’ life.
            Have you read Moses’ version of these events in Deuteronomy 10:1-5 ?

            Bezalel’s name does not appear anywhere in the Book of Deuteronomy.

          • Matthew Perri In Deuteronomy 10:1-5 Moses is saying that the tablets were first put into his box and there they remained – obviously until they were moved – the new box is mentioned in verse 8 of the same chapter. Do you honestly think that Moses was a professional idiot who didn’t realize that his book (Deuteronomy) will be read by the same people who read the first four books? (whoever may have written them)?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            You raise an interesting question. I’m sure Moses realized that sooner or later, the people who had the first 4 books would read Deuteronomy and might compare them. But in the short term, the two references to “this Book of the Law” at the end of Deuteronomy and beginning of Joshua which you quoted earlier could just be Joshua’s immediate “marching orders”, namely Deuteronomy. This new book marginalizes Aaron, his family, and the Priesthood in general – people who might be likely to rebel against Moses’ new leader Joshua, due to the authority that God conferred on Aaron and his line…….

          • Pharisee Friend
            Bezalel’s name does not appear anywhere in the Book of Deuteronomy.
            Moses took all the credit for creating the box, and for the idea as well, robbing Bezalel of credit and Yahweh of glory.

          • Matthew Perri You are the first person in 3000 years to read it that way – does that give you pause?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I am observing facts about the text of Torah – what is there and what is not.
            If Bezalel’s family had access to Deuteronomy almost 3500 years ago, I’m sure they would have noticed too…….

  8. Pharisee Friend,
    One time at an “Evangelical Bible-based Church” I heard a famous “pastor” say; “It was a mistake for Moses to bring Aaron with him”, because Aaron accomplished nothing good, but instead he made the Golden Calf…

    This “pastor” was part of a church denomination that strongly believes in “the inerrancy of Scripture”, and teaching verse by verse, book by book through the entire 66 Books of the Bible. They also believe in the “Moses Model” for church leadership….. His church had about 8000 people come every Sunday, for 5 services, he had been leading the church for 30 years, wrote a number of books, and traveled extensively as a guest speaker.

    Do you agree with his assessment of Aaron and Aaron’s ministry?
    If not,
    Would you agree that, if we look at Aaron solely though the lens of the text of Deuteronomy, a reasonable person could come to this conclusion?

    • Matthew Perri Of-course not! Just look at Deuteronomy 33:8 – look at all the times throughout Deuteronomy that the priests are given such a central role – the priests are all an extension of the covenant with Aaron

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Pharisee Friend,
        Deuteronomy 33:8 is very…. “oblique” perhaps is the right word? Moses can’t bear to mention Aaron’s name even here? Aaron’s name only appears 4 times – twice about his death, and twice in the verse where Moses blames Aaron for the Golden Calf – and that is all?

        What do you make of Deuteronomy 10:6-9 ? (In my NIV, this section is in parenthesis.)
        If you just look at that, you would be inclined to completely write Aaron out of the history, and ignore many chapters of material in the previous 3 books. I could practically fill the screen with verses – would you agree? This discredits Aaron completely – as if nothing was established until after he died.

        • Matthew Perri Deuteronomy 10:6-9 is telling us that God accepted Moses’ prayer on behalf of Aaron and that he died at the end of their travels – not at the time of the golden calf. I have a question for you about your attitude toward Deuteronomy – Do you believe that Joshua was a real prophet? Do you believe he lied when he wrote that God told him the contents of Joshua 1:7,8? According to your speculation – this refers to the book of Deuteronomy alone – it has a ringing endorsement from God – yet you see it as the musings of a senile, self-centered, arrogant, stingy old man?!

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Deuteronomy 10:8

            If you of all people read this and stop to think about it, I would be flabbergasted if you didn’t realize the implications. Moses is completely erasing the history of Aaron and the Levitical priesthood, and re-writing a PC watered down version.

            After Aaron’s death, “At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi…..” ??? No no no no no ! Only if you throw out huge portions of Exodus, most of Leviticus, and a lot of Numbers!

            “Eleazar his son succeeded him as PRIEST.” Not “High Priest”, just “priest.” Nothing about sacrifices or worship, or the authority granted to Aaron and his descendents.
            The Levites were just for moving the ark (that Moses made….) standing before God, and doing blessings…. That’s it ???

          • Matthew Perri Do you actually believe that throughout history anyone read the words of Moses that way? Is there the slightest record of anyone denigrating Aaron or the priesthood on the basis of these words? Did you check how many times priests and or Levites are mentioned in a position of authority throughout Deuteronomy?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Yes and yes.
            This pastor I mentioned here- he had a menorah in front of his pulpit, and claimed to be very “pro-Israel” too….
            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%ef%bb%bfclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-31706

            And Aaron is only mentioned 4 times in Deuteronomy – twice about his death, and twice in one verse blaming him for the Golden Calf. With due respect, I must note that you are really avoiding dealing with this specific passage, Deuteronomy 10:6-9, particularly verse 8.

          • Matthew Perri I have little care for what Christian pastors say – they are not the target audience of Scripture – they also encourage idolatry in the name of Scripture – its meaningless to me. Amongstthe Jewish people who are loyal to God Aaron is a righteous figure – and always has been for the past 3300 years Deuteronomy 10:8 refers to 9:15 as we see that in 10:10 he went back to the time right after the golden calf before he went up the second time

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend
            Regarding the image of Aaron people have, here is another example – my wife.
            Her father is a Godly man, an Evangelical Pastor who “preaches the Bible”, so she grew up hearing his sermons.

            Some years back, we had some dealings with a man named Aaron, and we were having some problems with him. I can remember her saying to me several times, “why would anyone name his son Aaron”? I remember we discussed it a little. To her, Aaron was more like a villain, not a hero. Not quite as bad as the real “baddies” like Saul, Pharaoh, Jezebel, and Judas, but still, for her at that time, it was bizarre for someone to be named Aaron, or Adam (whose main “claim to fame” was eating the forbidden fruit.) It would be sort of like putting a curse on your son.

            Although we didn’t specifically name the reason for her impression, probably in her mind, Aaron’s main “claim to fame” was “he made the Golden Calf.” Again, if a person’s view of Aaron comes solely from what is in Deuteronomy, or that is the primary lens to see Aaron with, a reasonable person could reach this conclusion, based on the text.
            Her view on Aaron has changed now, by the way.

            Also for me personally, until recently, my impression of Aaron was not quite that negative, but it wasn’t positive either. I didn’t see naming a boy Aaron as a curse, but neither did I see any good reason to do so, since it seemed to me he was just sort of “there”, without really doing anything of consequence, and Moses was really “The Man.”…..

          • Matthew Perri In our community “Aaron” is a very common name

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I agree with you that “Aaron is a righteous figure ” – based on the clear record in Torah in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. His name appears over 350 times in the Tanach.

            Do we agree that in terms of form, Deuteronomy is completely different than the other 4 books of Torah? It’s basically a letter written by Moses in the first person at the end of his life, after Aaron, Miriam, and almost all of the original leaders of Israel were dead.. The other books of Torah are narratives, and there is no mention of Moses in Genesis. We can agree on these facts first before we discuss how to interpret them, right?

          • Matthew Perri If you take two verses out of Exodus that don’t mention Aaron you could come to the same conclusion – Deuteronomy was never meant to be read without the first four books

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            You know the commandment, which appears at least twice in the Law of Moses, that one witness is not enough to convict a man of a crime, but rather every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

            The world’s most famous case of idolatry, the Golden Calf incident, is certainly an extremely serious crime, would you not agree? Are you willing to apply the Law of Moses to …..MOSES? Or is Moses somehow a special man that is “above the law”…..?

            Moses made the insinuation that “God was angry with Aaron” about the Golden Calf- but this solitary statement stands alone, unsupported by any other witness anywhere. It’s not a direct accusation, but it’s Gossip, spread by Moses against Aaron to cover his own failure of leadership and blame Aaron for it.

            We need to denounce this gossip, and declare Aaron innocent after all this time. We need to stop showing partiality in matters of the Law for “one special leader.”

          • Matthew Perri We are not “convicting” Aaron – we are not a court of law – and Moses is a prophet trusted by God – not a petty vindictive narcisstic senile old man – I know so many people who are above that – why would God call Moses the most humble man if he was more self-centered than so many people I know?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend
            I just found evidence that “This Book of the Law” in Deuteronomy 31:24-26, Joshua 1:7,8 was NOT The Torah.
            Look what happened at the end of Joshua’s life. Joshua 24:25-26
            You are not saying that Joshua added to Torah at the end of his life, are you?

          • Matthew Perri Deuteronomy 31:24 speaks of this Torah – you want to say it was a different book? Joshua wrote his book (or much of it) and it was considered holy – Scripture, it was not put in the ark of the covenant – but it was placed in the Temple

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            You said, “Deuteronomy was never meant to be read without the first four books”.

            While agree this is true from God’s perspective in the long term,
            I see evidence that from Moses’ and Joshua’s perspective in the short term, just the opposite is true. It seems to me the two big power groups in their day were the Aaronic Priesthood, and the Army – perhaps a bit like Pharisees and Saducees, or Republicans and Democrats….. let’s not get into who represents who…. 😉

            When a new leader had to be chosen, Moses bypassed his own clan the Levites, and Aaron’s family, and instead he chose a General from the Army – his loyal right hand man Joshua. Aaron’s family and the Levites may have been reluctant to be forthcoming with the contents of the first 4 books which they controlled, so Moses went around them.

            Moses wrote a “second Law”, he “winged it” and preached a sermon without notes, then wrote it down – and we have Deuteronomy. It’s an amazing piece of extemporaneus work, and this explains why Moses got the “spirit” of the 10th Commandment, but he inadvertently changed the wording. He wasn’t reading the stone where he had written it 40 years ago, he was just speaking off the top of his head.

            Then Moses gave Joshua this new “book of the law”, Deuteronomy, as his “marching orders”, and Joshua took it an ran with it. With this new “second law” book in hand, Joshua didn’t need the priesthood- so the Aaronic Priesthood and the Levites were marginalized and stripped of any authority to challenge Joshua for the leadership of the nation.

            In a way, it’s like Joseph’s brothers, who sold Joseph into slavery- they meant if for harm, but God used it for good. Likewise, Moses wrote Deuteronomy to replace the first 4 books, at least temporarily, until Joshua had a firm hold on the leadership. Moses may have meant it for harm, but in the long run, God used it for good.

          • Matthew Perri So the two men set apart by God for their most open miracles were petty power-hungry narcissits – interesting – I’ll go with God’s trust rather than with your speculations

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            And after Joshua died, without ever raising up any new leadership…. we have the chaotic period of the Judges.

          • Matthew Perri What is your point about the period of the judges? It was God who chose not to appoint a political leader to replace Joshua

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • If one wants to get an idea of Joshua’s views on raising up leadership and sharing power, one could read Joshua 13:1 and Joshua 23:1-2

            Then consider Joshua’s famous comment to Moses about others prophesying in the camp who where not “with them”…. “Moses my lord, stop them!” [Numbers 11:28]

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            You recognize Moses and Joshua as “two men set apart by God for their most open miracles”
            What about Yeshua?
            Why don’t you “….go with God’s trust rather than with your speculations”?

          • CP Open miracles means credible stuff like splitting the Sea or the Jordan – stopping the sun in the sky turning the Nile into blood – Yeshua’s few faith healings don’t stand out in any way

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Deuteronomy 31:24-26, This Book of the Law
            Joshua 1:7,8 this Book of the Law
            Joshua 23:6 The Book of the Law of Moses
            Joshua 24:25-26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God.

            Do you believe all 4 of these references are to The Torah, the first 5 Books?

          • Matthew Perri I think the first three refer to the five books of Moses while the last refers to Scripture in general

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            What about walking on water, calming the storm, feeding multitudes with a few fish and some bread, the resurrection, foretelling of the judgement of God on Jerusalem, ascension to heaven. All similar to miracles recored in Tanach.

          • CP Nice miracles – perhaps on the level of Elisha (some Hassidic rebbes) but nothing near Moses or Joshua – the way a miracle is measured in Scripture is by the amount of people it impacted (Deuteronomy 34:10-12; Joshua 10:14) – incidentally – the destruction of Jerusalem was foretold by Daniel years before Yeshua was born

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            To date; the resurrection has impacted roughly 13 billion people. To brush 13 billion under the rug still leaves a big hump.

          • CP I am talking about practical impact – not subjective impact – if numbers determine then Mohammed and Jospeh Smith should be accepted as prophets as well 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Yahweh parting the Red Sea is like someone stomping on a mud puddle and creating a two inch wave – compared to Elohim stomping on the ocean and creating a 2000 meter Tsunami in the time of Noah’ flood… 🙂

          • Matthew Perri You clearly do not understand the closing words of Deuteronomy – a miracle is not measured by God’s difficulty in doing it – in order for a prophet to be accepted He needs God to establish his/her credibility – Moses and Joshua had this done on a grand scale – Noah also did – but the witnesses didn’t maintain the testimony – the followers of Moses and Joshua did. The miracles that God allowed to be claimed by teh followers of Jesus are no more than the miracles He allows claimed for many people who both you and I recognize as frauds

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Regarding who is to blame for the period of the Judges,
            what do you make of Yahweh’s comment to Joshua in Joshua 13:1 ?

            Are you saying that Joshua did nothing wrong, and is completely blameless? That is wasn’t because Joshua never raised up new leadership, never delegated any real authority to anyone else, and never appointed a new leader- but rather,
            It’s all God’s fault?

          • Matthew Perri According to God’s own word in 1Samuel 8:7 – the preferred method of rulership in Israel was the one they had at the time of the judges – your criticism of Joshua is without basis

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            ??? “the preferred method of rulership in Israel was the one they had at the time of the judges ” ????

            Judges ends with “everyone did as he saw fit.” I recall this phrase is repeated a few times in the book, and I think other translations say “everyone did what was right in his own eyes”….. In other words, Lawlessness.
            Neither Moses nor Joshua were kings…..
            You are joking, right?

          • Matthew Perri Read the text – God was not happy when they requested central leadership – your quarrel is not with me but with God

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            To use a rhetorical term, it is a “false choice” to say the only 2 options are between “a king”, and “the way if was during the time of the Judges.”

            Samuel and Moses were not kings, but rather they were prophets, who worked with a high priest, were they not? (I suppose we could say the same of Joshua.) Would it not be more accurate to slay that THIS was the preferred model of leadership for national Israel? A Prophet and a High Priest working together as the central recognized authority for all Israel?

          • Matthew Perri Moses, Joshua and Samuel were raised by God without the people’s participation in the process – this is the preferred method of government – to leave things up to God – and that is exactly what Joshua did

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

        • LarryB says:

          Matthew Perry
          Didn’t Moses write chapter 32 after the golden calf incident happened?

        • cflat7 says:

          Matthew,
          I’ve been reading in this thread with all your arguing and wrangling about Moses, Aaron and the first few books of the Torah. However I’m not sure what your point of all this is. I know I’m jumping into this back and forth you are having with the Rabbi, but if you could explain what you are trying to prove, that would be appreciated.

          • Dina says:

            Hi C (pun intended),

            I’ve been wondering the same thing. I might have an inkling. Can you think of a reason why a Christian might want to undermine Moses’s authority?

          • cflat7,
            A classic “ad hominem” attack. We are called to be Torah observant, and talk about it, and we have Psalm 119. I have raised a number of points here. I was wrong on a few, and so I changed my mind on those.

            On a number of others, I have made some observations of fact about the text of Torah, which no one in the world has even attempted to refute. But rather than facing the facts in the text and discussing them, you go after me personally and question my motives…….

            We are discussing Torah. If I said something wrong, please testify as to what is wrong. That goes for you too Dina.

          • Yahweh said to Moses…..
            “Of all the Israelites, I have given the Levites as gifts to Aaron and his sons to do the work of the Tent of Meeting on behalf of the Israelites and to make atonement for them….”
            [Numbers 8:19]
            Why would someone want to undermine the authority of the worship leader appointed by Yahweh personally?

          • Matthew Perri Who undermined the authority of the priests and Levites? (besides for the author of Hebrews)

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina,
            Have you read Numbers 17, 18, and the end of 27?
            You can see what God did to confirm Aaron’s authority, and what God said to Aaron about the authority his sons would hold. And Moses had to obey God and bring Joshua before Eleazar in order for Joshua to be legitimate.

            Is there a reason someone would want to undermine Aaron’s authority given to him personally by Yahweh?

          • CP says:

            Matthew Perri,
            What’s wrong with you?!!
            Don’t you know your not allowed to discuss a differing opinion on Torah unless you’re an Orthodox Jew? Since your not part of the Witness Community you are expected to sit down, shut up listen and learn.
            Or, or, or, you’ll be accused of undermining Moses!
            ( Not that anybody here would ever do that)

            Keep up the good work Matthew, I may not know where you’re headed with the authorship posts, but have considered them thought provoking and have enjoyed following them.

          • CP,
            I’m glad you are listening. I don’t know exactly where I’m going regarding the “authorship” issue, but
            I’m headed toward God, digging into Torah and other parts of the Tanach. Some of the things I’ve been finding have been astonishing to me too….. I’ve never heard or seen some of them anywhere else – but they are true! And I’m not going to retain a membership in the “Flat Earth Society” when faced with the facts from Copernicus and Galileo…..

          • CP says:

            Matthew Perri,
            One of the great things about what you’re doing is the exploration. Anyone can read a map, but you’re actually going there. Sure you might make some wrong turns, but all that means is you’ve been to the dead end instead of just listening to someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone; ‘it’s a dead end’ but not knowing why. The word “Witness” is used generously here, but witness to what? What they’ve been told? Or to what they’ve explored first hand?

            Of course just believing everything you’re told is a extremely fast way to gain knowledge, but is it correct knowledge? Even if it is correct, you still only have knowledge rather than understanding. Those who build on second hand knowledge build a house of cards, those who build on understanding build a fortress.

          • cflat7 says:

            Matthew,

            ‘“ad hominem” attack?’

            That wasn’t my intention (I’d like to retract the use of the word “wrangling” as it has apparently conveyed the wrong nuance). I was actually just trying to understand what you are trying to prove. But from your recent dialog with CP it seems to be apparent that you aren’t trying to prove anything in particular.

            Also, exploration is great (I do it myself a lot), but I’ve noticed you seem to discover things (after a recent first reading of the Chumash, I believe?) and then challenge the Rabbi with the attitude that there is something wrong with the Torah as we have it, rather than trying to understand how your conclusions may or may not be valid… just wondering. This isn’t ad hominem, I’m just trying to understand where you are headed with the many arguments, challenges, and speculations.

          • CP and cflat7,
            What is “Scripture” and what is the ultimate, most authoritative written “word of God”?

            Is MY “Scripture” The Word of God,
            or does my Scripture CONTAIN the written The Word of God?

            The teaching of false apostle Paul was “all Scripture is God-breathed.” No one agreed with him in the pages of the Bible. But this is the basic view of many religious people about THEIR “Scripture”. Without really thinking, Evangelical Christians would say the 66 Books – and only those – are Scripture, every word is equally God-breathed.

            Many Jews would say “balderdash”, and insist, that no, it is their Tanach, or especially The Torah that is all “God-breathed.” (Muslims would talk about the false prophet Muhammad’s writings…..)

            No one is questioning whether Moses was God’s appointed Prophet, or that the Law of Moses in Torah is authoritative. He was, and it is. But Moses talking about his own feelings and his opinions about the feelings of others are not “the word of God” just because Moses said or wrote them in Torah. The voice of Moses is not automatically equivalent to The Command of God, and the voice of Moses should not override all other voices.

          • Jim says:

            CP and Matthew,

            However elitist it may sound to argue that one should come to the Torah observant Jewish community if one wishes to truly understand Torah, it is a logical necessity.

            The Torah books that you seek to interpret tell you this themselves. Not only are the Jewish people appointed to be God’s witnesses, they were entrusted with the Torah. It was given to them for both study and practice. The other nations of the world were not entrusted with this gift, and if they wish to learn it, they must come to those to whom it was entrusted. And as Zechariah tells us, many will come to the Jewish people in the future, acknowledging that God is with them.

            It was given to a community, not to individuals. It was not left to individual interpretation, which would necessarily make it many Torahs. God appointed teachers from the Levites and a system of judges. If one does not understand the Torah, he is to come to these. Not only that, he is not allowed to institute his own rulings. One is to heed the voices of the judges. He is not allowed to deviate from their rulings (See Deut. 17:8-13).

            Among other things, this means that it is not up to the individual to determine for himself who is a prophet and who is the messiah. He cannot declare his own judgment to be superior to the court that ruled a man to be a prophet or not, messiah or not. If he accepts a prophet according to his own private judgment, he puts himself outside the community. He also violates Torah.

            Even if the Torah did not teach this, however, we would know that it must be so. One must recognize that if two people each serve as his own final authority on the Torah, each will be practicing his own private religion. The laws that are to govern both of them do not really, because each follows his own individual law.

            Moreover, one must concede that the opinion of the expert is of greater weight than the opinion of the non-expert. One does not read a medical textbook and assume his knowledge greater than that of a doctor. Nor does one weight the medical advice of all people the same. The doctor, who has studied medicine, has the most trustworthy opinion. And if one wishes to learn medicine, he does not go to a lawyer for lessons but to the doctor.

            We three are in a position where we must rely upon the Jewish people and not just any, but those that have devoted themselves to Torah. CP, though you may be Jewish, you have not had a Jewish education. Your understanding of the Torah has been corrupted by the Church. Moreover, you have not been raised to learn Torah by practice. It has not been a part of you.

            Matthew, you do not read Hebrew. You have to determine what sources to trust. Should you go to Christian sources? They do not know the Torah. They do not even fairly represent the Torah. And you can see how badly they have misled you. It is sensible to turn away from those that have twisted the Torah. It is sensible to turn to the people that have kept and guarded it all their lives, whom have studied and practiced it, for whom it is life itself. It is sensible to turn to the Jewish people.

            Matthew, you have said that you have changed your mind. However, you have only experienced the shadow of changing one’s mind. Your conclusions are the same; only the premises change. Still you maintain cloud-reading, when you clearly misrepresent the passages you present. You ignore contradicting evidence. You must consider that you just do not understand the Torah. You must consider that you need a guide. You must consider learning from the Jewish people.

            The two of you have an opportunity before you. Do not assume your own capabilities enough to understand Torah. For the Jewish people, the Torah is not a sterile set of words on the page. They have lived it and breathed it for thousands of years. No one is better equipped to teach you than they. Seize the opportunity to learn from them.

            Jim

          • Dina says:

            Oh Jim, couldn’t you have squished this beautiful and moving comment into three words or less? Some people will complain about its length and not be able to get past the first paragraph…

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            Thank you for your fine comment.
            However we are at odds concerning Deut. 17:8-13. If you read it in context it is referring to legal rulings given to specific Individuals at a specific times. However these verses have been morphed into more than ever intended; a perpetual ruling class of men able to write authoritative torah applicable to all people for all times future. (Adding to Torah)

            However if you have other verses which spell out this is in fact God’s intended meaning, please do not hesitate to post them for consideration.

          • CP If you want a Scriptural understanding of Deuteronomy 17:8-13 – see 2Chronicles 19:9-11 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Regarding judges:

            If you review our conversations, I think you will find that they fit within the context of Deuteronomy 17, and that many of the things you believe yourself able to interpret for yourself are necessarily reserved to the judges.

            Consider for example the definition of melacha. A working definition must be in place before a court can rule upon it. And since the penalty for breaking the Sabbath is so severe, the definition must be clear and known. You do not believe that tying a knot is prohibited because you do not see it as work. The court, instituted by HaShem, maintains that tying a knot is prohibited. It is clear that if you teach otherwise, you elevate yourself above the court. It is also clear that you alienate yourself from the community that follows the rulings of that court. It is clear that their understanding of the law is the one that must be followed and that it is not a matter of personal opinion. “You must carry out fully the law that they interpret for you or the ruling that they announce to you; do not turn aside from the decision they announce to you, either to the right or the left” (Deut. 17:11).

            The same can be applied to determining whether or not Jesus was a prophet. If he is a false prophet or presumptuous, he is liable to capital punishment. It is a matter for the courts. The individual cannot assert his own authority to declare that Jesus is a prophet.

            It is pertinent also to consider whether or not Jesus can be the author of his own oral Torah. Obviously this cannot be the case. He, not being a judge, had not authority to interpret the law. And it would be futile for him to attempt to do so. Let us say that he determined something to be halachically valid and practiced it. And some objected and took him to the judges. Let us also say that the judges ruled that his practice violated the Torah. At that point, he is liable to their judgment. If he declares that his own ruling is correct, he is in violation of Torah. If he continues his practice, he is liable to the death penalty: “As for anyone who presumes to disobey the priest appointed to minister there to the Lord your God, or the judge, that person shall die” Deut. 17:12). Jesus has no authority to create his own oral Torah. Nor is one permitted, therefore, to follow Jesus’ oral Torah rather than that of the rabbis.

            Jim

  9. Pharisee Friend,
    Sometimes, when a godly man reaches the end of his life, he may say some things about others that are not pleasing to God. He may want to justify himself and make himself look good, he may hold grudges, he may seek revenge. People are human, we all have flaws, even great men like Moses and King David. (Deuteronomy, end of chapter 9, beginning of chapter 10)

    David’s last wish was for the death of his enemies. His dying words were “Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood.” 1 Kings 2:9
    Do you think this pleased God?
    Try reading Yahweh’s word to Solomon in the next chapter 1 Kings 3:10:11

    • Matthew Perri Moses and David had flaws and the Torah exposes them – but what is not exposed as a flaw is not a flaw – David did right – it wasn’t his personal enemies that he needed killed – it was the enemies of his dynasty that he had a responsibility to preserve

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Pharisee Friend,
        You don’t see the words of Yahweh to Solomon in 1 Kings 3:10:11 as “exposing David’s flaw as a flaw” in the previous chapter?

        • Matthew Perri 1Kings 3:10,11 is not an exposure of David’s flaw – there is a time and place for everything – 1Kings 15:5 tells me that my understanding is correct

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend
            1 Kings 3:10:11 records the literal spoken words of Yahweh to Solomon.
            In contrast,
            1Kings 15:5 is a general editorial comment made by the author of this book, and it seems obvious it is not to be taken literally. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that David’s adultery with Bathsheba was not sin, since it doesn’t mention this either. You are not implying that “except in the case of Uriah the Hittite”, everything that David ever did and said was 100% right, and David was never in the wrong – are you?

          • Matthew Perri 1Kings 14:8 are God’s own words – it is clear that the incident with Uriah includes the adultery – for teh Scripture to omit another blatant murder would render God’s word (as recorded by a prophet as a direct quote or as He inspired the prophet to write) meaningless 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            We are weighing two statements in Scripture (from the same book in The Prophet’s section, the Nabi’im) against each other. 1Kings 3:10,11 vs. 1Kings 15:5

            I put the voice of Yahweh Himself, Yahweh’s own words, ABOVE the voice of the human author of the book in his editorial comments. I think this should be the correct approach, pretty much always. Would you agree? And if not, could you be kind enough to tell me why not?

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Obviously 1Kings 14:8 are not to be taken literally as “David never sinned”, when obviously he did. These are the words of an obscure prophet, speaking for God, using the example of David to rebuke someone else. Generally, David did what was right – not David was always 100% right with one exception. To be honest, this is really sort of “cult-like”, using a verse like this to “whitewash” David’s behavior and say it can’t be evaluated.

            It seems to me that you treat Moses, Joshua, and David as sort of “supermen” who are above the Law and can’t be questioned on anything. What were some of their flaws? For Moses, Meribah? Moses never even admitted this was his own fault – he blamed the people for making him do it. How about Joshua’s flaws? Can you name one? And David, only adultery and murder, once each, and nothing else? This is not reality. They were real men, with real flaws, and we should not idolize them..

          • Matthew Perri All of the book of Kings is the words of some obscure prophet sometimes recording God’s direct words – I don’t idolize anyone and I recognize that our great men had flaws – but when the Bible doesn’t present an act as a flaw and you interpret it as a flaw based on your own speculation – I take God’s word through an obscure prophet over your speculation

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            David’s dying wish was literally for the death of his enemies.
            Right after that, in the next chapter of the same book, Yahweh speaks personally to David’s son Solomon and commends Solomon’s prayer because,
            in contrast to David in the previous chapter,
            Solomon DID NOT ask for the death of his enemies.
            How much more obvious does God need to be?

            Do we need to jump 10 chapters ahead, and look for a passing statement from a prophet that “David was a good man” – and then interpret that to mean everything David did and said in his life is a perfect model of maturity (with one exception)?

            I see God’s character at work, that if our general attitude is that we are actively seeking Him, and trying to know Him, listen to Him, serve Him and obey Him, God is pleased. And God isn’t going to bring out a laundry list of every one of our sins every time he mentions us. Not mentioning David’s sins, or mentioning only “the affair of Uriah”, doesn’t mean David was perfect in everything else.

            I have raised quite a few specific points, but you seem to want to just gloss over them, and elevate Moses and other heads of national Israel, Joshua and David, above what they should be. And everyone else is discredited, marginalized, ignored, or brushed aside as relatively unimportant – Aaron, Bezalel, Oholiab, Noah, other Patriarchs….. but when it comes to your idols, Moses Joshua and David, they are made of Teflon, nothing sticks, and you always have a way to justify anything they did or said. Is this not a true observation of what you have been doing?

          • Matthew Perri Your observation is not true for many demonstrable reasons – first of all I do not think that Moses, Joshua and David were flawless – Second – I did nothing to denigrate Aaaron, Oholiab, Bezalel or Noah – show me one line of writing where I did that – and third – David’s general righteousness is not a “passing statement” it is an underlying theme of Scripture – this is the heart that God chose. If the men who God loved are portrayed as doing something that can be seen in a positive or negative light – I would go positive because of their standing in God’s eyes – unless the Scripture clearly tells me otherwise

            And by the way – God gave Solomon the death of his enemies – 1Kings 3:12 – its just that this should not have been the one request from God

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • cflat7 says:

            Matthew,

            Wow, you sure seem to be trying to pick a fight.

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Most nominal Christians “rob Peter to pay Paul.”
            Catholics rob Jesus to pay Mary.
            Muslims rob everyone else to pay Muhammad.
            Mormons rob others to pay Joseph Smith.
            Do you think it’s right to “rob Aaron to pay Moses”?

          • Matthew Perri Outside of your pastors I never heard anyone denigrating Aaron – in my community he is up there together with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joseph and David – together we call them the seven shepherds – Miriam is also regarded highly as In Micha 6:4

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Jim says:

            … or rob God to pay Jesus?

            Matthew, so much of what you write is irrelevant, as you hijack thread after thread with your own personal pet peeves. You attempt to turn each thread on which you post into a screed against Paul and a platform for your own ill-informed interpretations of books you do not read and do not understand. It is absurd for you to strenuously object to the idolization of Moses which no one here does, while you worship a man as if he were a god.

            It is obvious that the Jewish people did not interpret Moses’ words in the manner you do. The Aaronic priesthood remained in tact. Because you read the Torah in a sterile environment, you cannot understand it. You do not know the language of Torah or the way it was lived and understood by those to whom it was given.

            Jim

          • Jim,
            I answered your question – now I have one for you.
            Regarding the failure of leadership in the Golden Calf incident, which leader should bear the blame for that, Moses or Aaron, and what is the Scriptural basis for your belief?

          • Jim says:

            Matthew,

            I am disinclined to answer your question because it is not relevant to any discussion happening here except one you wish to press upon everyone else based upon your selective reading and ignorance. I will point out that I have answered many other questions you have asked, because they are relevant to the discussions here.

            Jim

          • Jim, you wrote QUOTE:
            “It is absurd for you to strenuously object to the idolization of Moses which no one here does…..”

            You idolize Moses. You believe it would be a grave crime to say “Moses was wrong”. You think that The Law about needing two witnesses to convict a man doesn’t apply to Moses. No this isn’t a “court”. But we are talking about the most famous case of idolatry in world history. Other than Moses’ one brief insinuation in passing – not even an accusation- against Aaron, years after Aaron’s death, there is nothing anywhere in Torah to even suggest that Aaron was primarily to blame for the Golden Calf. Moses didn’t leave Aaron in charge of the camp! Moses didn’t delegate authority to Aaron !

            But for you, one insinuation from Moses is enough to convict a man of one of the greatest crimes in history. You need to stop this idolatry, and declare Aaron innocent – and place the blame where it belongs – with Moses.

          • Matthew Perri Did you forget Exodus 24:14?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Jim says:

            Matthew,

            You are not the first to accuse Moses of attempting to extend his authority. It did not go well for the others.

            Jim

          • Pharisee Friend and Jim,
            No I didn’t forget Exodus 24:14 – I looked at in context, and thought about the real world practical implications. Who said what to whom, when and where and how, who was present, who was not present, and what was not said….. Moses undermined Aaron’s authority. Anyone with experience working in an organization who heard something like what Moses said, the way he said it, would understand that.

            Again, why do you think that God blamed Aaron for the Golden Calf, other than Moses’ one innuendo in Deuteronomy that “God was angry with Aaron” ? Can you point me to a single thing God said or did to indicate that?

            Jim, if you mean Numbers 12, you mean “other”, not “others”. God didn’t blame Aaron at all – only Miriam.

          • Matthew Perri
            Your inability to read Hebrew is telling – the accusations in Numbers 12 verses 8 and 9 are in the plural indicating that Aaron was also guilty, Aaron’s plea to Moses in verse 11 is also in the plural – I guess Matthew Perri would accuse you of “idolizing” Aaron

          • Pharisee Friend,
            That is interesting. And do you see that Aaron suffered any negative consequences for this, or for the Golden Calf, and if so what where they?

          • Pharisee Friend, you said, “I do not think that Moses, Joshua and David were flawless ”
            OK, now the challenge is to move from theory and theology to practical application of specific verses of Tanach.
            WHERE were they not flawless specifically?

            .1) Moses – The waters of Meribah – (he never admitted personal blame, but rather said the people made him do it – true?)
            Where else?

            .2) Joshua? The silence is deafening.

            .3) David – “the matter of Uriah the Hittite” – does that include laziness, laying in bed alone at home all day instead of going out to fight with his army or manage the country or take care of his 6 existing wives and 6 children, and then coveting his neighbor’s wife?
            What else?

          • Matthew Perri
            Your understanding of good people is so shallow that I see no point in this conversation – you have a long way to go before I can talk to you about these things – if you can really think like this about the one God called the most humble of all men or about the author of the Psalms
            I would suggest you go out and read some biographies of men and women who lived recently – go to a Orthodox Jewish bookstore and pick up “A Tzaddik in Our Times” or some other biography of a moral giant – then we can talk
            For your information – our traditions point out many flaws for these people – but talking to you is like talking to someone about the qualities of a top pianist when you don’t know the first thing about music

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I am defending Aaron the anointed High Priest of Yahweh from an insinuation that he was responsible for the most famous case of idolatry in history.

            I say Aaron was innocent. I say that the only man to ever even imply that Aaron was guilty of this was Moses, with one passing negative comment at the end of his life. And I say this one comment is not enough to declare Aaron guilty.
            This is reasonable, isn’t it?

          • Jim says:

            Matthew,

            You need not defend Aaron. No one said anything against him. You are erecting strawmen. Unfortunately, due to your unfamiliarity with Torah, you come to unwarranted conclusions. And though they have no relevance, you go on at length about them, daring people to answer challenges to positions they never enumerated.

            And I was referencing Korach.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            Seriously?
            With all due respect don’t you recognize your own double standard?
            You are able to accept the flaws in others and still label them as Tzaddik.
            But when it comes to Yeshua? You disqualify him because of the slander of others? Does Torah teach a man to judge fairly?

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            When one imputes faults to Jesus, this is not because of slander of others. One imputes these faults to him based on the words of those that thought they were praising him.

            On the other hand, the words that you have relied upon to denigrate the rabbis of Jesus day do qualify to be characterized as the “slander of others”. The NT constantly defames these men, and you have accepted this testimony as, if you will pardon the expression, the gospel truth.

            That is to say, R’ Blumenthal’s judgment is not based on the “slander of others,” while your judgment is demonstrably based on this.

            At the same time, Jesus is not held up to be a tzaddik in the way of these other men. He is supposed to have been a greater man than they. Though you may not consider him perfect, you know that most Christians—even most lovers of Jesus—do consider him to be perfect. And even you probably consider him to be the best of men that ever lived. Yet, it is clear that Jesus was not the morally superior man that the NT would have us to believe. On the other hand, nobody makes the claim that Moses or David was perfect.

            Your argument should be with Matthew Perri, not R’ Blumenthal. Matthew Perri argues vociferously that Moses and David are imperfect, while nobody claims them to be anything other than that. Meanwhile, he holds that another imperfect man is perfect. Worse, he holds that that man is divine. He literally idolizes a man while accusing others of idolizing Moses, David, and Joshua.

            Your argument is empty. It is indeed the lover of Jesus that accepts the slanderous words of others. It is the lover of Jesus that teaches the perfection of its hero. It is the lover of Jesus that accuses others of idolizing others while making their hero into an actual idol.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            Apparently you haven’t thought your argument through. Let’s have a go shall we? According to you, if a well intentioned lover and praiser of Moses incorrectly makes more of him than what is rightful means you should reject Moses?
            Right?
            That’s your logic concerning Yeshua.
            You do not judge Yeshua with the same standard you judge other Tzaddik. You should ask yourself why you cannot be intellectually honest with yourself? If it be not a matter of intellect the root must be spiritual.

          • CP Wouldn’t you agree that someone who claims sinlessness is asking to be judged on a different standard? And besides – if Moses would have pointed to himself the way Yeshua pointed to himself – we would give him the same treatment

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Again, you misrepresent the arguments of others to make their arguments appear hollow. You have altered the context of the conversation to make my argument appear absurd. The topic under discussion was not reasons to accept or reject Jesus.

            You write: “…According to you, if a well intentioned lover and praiser of Moses incorrectly makes more of him than what is rightful means you should reject Moses?
            Right?
            That’s your logic concerning Yeshua.”

            But this is a distortion of the conversation. We were not discussing reasons for rejecting Jesus. Anyone reading the thread of the conversation can see that.

            You conflate issues. I reject the claim that Jesus is divine on various grounds. I reject the claim that Jesus is prophet on different grounds. And I reject the claim that Jesus is Messiah on other grounds. In your rewriting of the objections to Jesus, you pretend that I reject Jesus as Messiah because some claim that he is divine. This is false.

            It is monstrous of you to ignore months of writing so that you can dismiss your interlocutors as either intellectually or spiritually inferior to yourself. My writings on why he is a false prophet, for example, do not hinge upon the fact that he is worshiped as God. Instead I argue that he issued prophecies that never came to pass. You invent arguments rather than answering the ones given.

            It is most destructive to your stated purpose here to continually rewrite and dismiss your opponents. If you are here to learn, declaring the intellectual or spiritual inferiority of others is antithetical to your goal. Misrepresenting their work disables you from understanding their work. If you wish to learn, you must refrain from recontextualizing every conversation and insulting those from whom you desire to learn.

            Jim

          • Pharisee Friend,
            I believe one could make the case the Moses indirectly “claims sinlessness ” by omission. I am not aware that he ever admitted that he was ever wrong about anything. Even for the waters of Meribah, Moses blamed the people for making him do it….. Did I miss something?

          • Pharisee Friend, you said, “if Moses would have pointed to himself the way Yeshua pointed to himself – we would give him the same treatment ”

            According to Moses’ testimony in Deuteronomy, who made the Ark of the Covenant?
            ….So I made the ark out of acacia wood…..” Deuteronomy 10:3

            “Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood”…. Exodus 37:1

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            I am glad that you introduced into the conversation that I may have a spiritual deficiency. Perhaps you would even say that I may be spiritually blinded? Regardless, I think this will give us good grounds for examining some of your claims.

            According to you, Jesus has changed the lives of billions, bringing them to repentance and to Torah. And, according to you, he has given these people a spirit of truth. But also, according to you, Jesus is not God and is not to be worshiped as God. Herein, one finds a difficulty.

            Among these billions of reformed lives, the great majority of them violate one of the most basic principles of Torah. They do this, according to you, not me, under the guidance of the spirit of truth. This spirit of truth leads them to an act of idolatry; worse, to lives devoted to idolatry. It leads them to rewrite the words of the prophets, i.e. to distort the truth. This spirit of truth leads them to impose upon the Shema a threeness, and to disregard open statements that God is alone. In short, this spirit leads them to honor God less than they ought and Jesus more than they ought.

            I must admit that I am not interested in being infected by such a spirit. If it does not enable one to understand one of the foundational truths of Torah, it does not seem to promote truth much at all. Of course, you will argue that these people are not perfect. They are still people after all. But it is not asking for perfection for people so blessed by a spirit of truth to understand one of the foundations of Torah, one that is stated openly. It is not asking for perfection for people guided by a spirit of truth to not alter the words of the Torah and prophets. If the spirit of truth does not do this much, it does not do much at all.

            Of course, you are correct that I am not spiritually perfected. I have many faults. I do thank God, however, that I am not afflicted with the spirit sent by Jesus to lead billions to idolatry. Once, I did worship a man as if he were a god. I thank HaShem that He delivered me from such folly.

            The claim that Jesus has changed the world with this spirit of truth is empty. The focus of these billions of lives has not been on Torah; it has been on Jesus. When they read Torah, they altered it to find Jesus. They violated one of the basic truths of Torah and one of its most primal commands, that God is God alone and that one may worship nothing and no one other than God. Rather than leading them to Torah, it has led them to a funhouse mirror version of Torah. Though obviously distorted, they could not see that they had an imperfect image before them. If this is the spirit of truth, I do not want it.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            R ‘B,
            U write;
            “CP Wouldn’t you agree that someone who claims sinlessness is asking to be judged on a different standard?”
            Comment;
            Yes, but where did Yeshua proclaim sinlessness?

            U write;
            And besides – if Moses would have pointed to himself the way Yeshua pointed to himself – we would give him the same treatment.
            Comment;
            You mean the same Moses wrote of himself that he was ‘the most humble man ever to have lived’?

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            To comment on both your posts is difficult, you say so little with so much. In the first post you go to great length to accuse misrepresentation of your arguments yet never take the words to explain what your argument is. You claim Yeshua was a false prophet, but don’t back it up. Oh, I’m sure you will defer to your “months of writing” once again. If I remember correctly it was Yeshua says of the Temple ‘one stone will not be left on another’ and you point to a retaining wall of the Temple Mount and claim false prophet. That hardly constitutes proof. But it does show a spiritual inclination to twist things into what they aren’t. You show your hand Sir. Which brings us to your second post.

            While I have my own views of Yeshua, I do not claim God is Not working among Christians on the grounds they hold to Trinitarian beliefs. Jim, we need to put into perspective what your doing: A man and his wife both atheists addicted to alcohol, heroine, adultery and the like abusing their three children as a result, they accept God manifested himself in Yeshua and their lives become changed forever; both clean, sober and monogamous, believing in God and teaching their children the Bible. ALL YOU CAN FOCUS ON is calling them “idol worshipers”, This shows a spiritual problem is at work within you. Not that your reject Trinitarianism, but because you are unable to look past imperfections of others to see what God may be doing. You (we) should count ourselves fortunate and blessed that God stoops to work with the imperfect.

          • Dina says:

            Ah, Jim! Not only are you intellectually dishonest, you also lack the capability to be intellectually honest. And to top it all off, you are verbose! Whatever are we going to do with you?

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            I have never known anyone to find a six-paragraph comment to be as taxing as you do. I suppose that this is to be expected in the age of twitter. Perhaps there are some exercises available that will enable you to concentrate for longer periods of time. It may take some time before you can get up to six paragraphs without exhaustion or complaint, but I believe it can be done.

            Of course the reason I did not delineate my argument why Jesus is not a prophet is because that is not relevant to the immediate topic. I suppose that if reading one comment is too much for you, then certainly reviewing the thread of conversation is too much to expect. Surely, though, you can understand the context of the paragraph in the midst of one comment! The point was not to disprove Jesus but to show that you were misrepresenting the immediate discussion.

            With this paragraph, already I can sense you becoming faint. We are halfway to the dreaded six paragraphs in length. Bear with me if you can.

            You are incorrect in recalling my arguments against Jesus as prophet. I have not argued about the prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple. That was Dina. When you have the time, you can return to the page where those comments are found. But you will need the patience to read more than 140 characters.

            Regarding your second paragraph, I will have to make a second post. I do not wish to weary you too much. Let me know when you have your second wind.

            Jim

          • Dina says:

            Jim, Jim, Jim, what did I tell you about writing what you have to say in three words or less? Some of us here suffer from severe ADD. Have some consideration, please!

          • Dina says:

            CP, you wrote to Jim that there is something spiritually wrong with him if he sees people clean up their act and can’t get past this imperfection of their idolatry.

            This tells me that you don’t think the sin of idolatry is really that big of a deal. It’s the biggest crime a man can commit against God. It’s not a little imperfection. (By the way, this is not to judge people who worship God in the best way they know how. We don’t believe that people of other faiths are eternally damned or punished in some way. As long as you try your best to live a moral life, who are we to judge? It simply breaks our hearts that so many have been misled. But God will correct that in His own time when He sends the Messiah.)

            But you fail to realize something else: Loads of Muslims and people of other faiths have similarly turned away from vice as a direct result of a spiritual experience within their faith. Why not praise those other religions as well? Would you say that God is working among the adherents of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism too? If not, why not?

          • Dina says:

            CP, three false prophecies/signs I can think of off the top of my head (and I believe Jim presented them but you dismissed them):

            1. The prophecy, yes, of not one stone remaining on top of the other. I’ve treated this subject already, but if you’d like to rehash it I’m willing. It’s obvious to an objective person (who does not need to believe that Jesus never made a false statement) that this prophecy did not come to pass.

            2. The failure to fulfill the “sign of Jonah” to the Pharisees.

            3. The failure of Jesus to return in his disciples’ lifetime as promised.

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            I would enjoy six paragraphs of meat, however when time is valuable searching through five paragraphs of gravy looking or than one tiny chunk of meat can be frustrating. Dina may call it ADD, perhaps she’s right, as I read your posts my mind wanders thinking does this guy like the sound of his voice or what, is he ever going to get to the point?

            You posted 3 times now and still I don’t know your point except you accuse me of misrepresenting your argument by asking you to apply the same standard to Yeshua as you do to Moses.

          • Dina says:

            CP, there is plenty of meat, you just can’t stand the sound of Jim’s voice. Your visceral reaction lately to everything he writes is very telling.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            U write;
            “1. The prophecy, yes, of not one stone remaining on top of the other. I’ve treated this subject already, but if you’d like to rehash it I’m willing. It’s obvious to an objective person (who does not need to believe that Jesus never made a false statement) that this prophecy did not come to pass.”

            Comment;
            “It’s obvious to an objective person”
            Really? Lemme help you out sweet pea;
            Here is what 3 verses say Yesuha was talking about:
            (Caps mine)

            Mattew 24:1
            Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the TEMPLE BUILDINGS to Him.

            Mark 13:1
            As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him, “Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful BUILDINGS!”

            Mark 13:2
            And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great BUILDINGS? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.”

            Dina, the Wailing Wall is a retaining wall Herod built to enlarge the Temple Mount. It is a retaining wall not a building, nor could it be SEEN as Yeshua and the disciples were leaving the Temple. You’re grasping at straws which aren’t even straws!

            The intent of Yeshua’s prophecy was met perfectly.

          • Dina says:

            CP, your quote makes it even worse. Jesus predicted that not only the Temple but also its buildings would be torn down with not one stone remaining on top of the other. But remnants of surrounding buildings still remain. Also, your excuse for the Western Wall holds no water. It was one of the outer walls of the Temple, which was also built in large part by Herod. What, the parts built by Herod don’t count as part of the prophecy? And you know this because?

            Why do you not address the other prophecies?

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            U write;
            “CP, there is plenty of meat, you just can’t stand the sound of Jim’s voice. Your visceral reaction lately to everything he writes is very telling.”

            Comment;
            This is the kind of stuff that gets us no where. Why don’t you spend some time on my direct answer to your question instead of this ^^^?

            Allow me to remind you:
            You asked;
            “I’d like to know what the rabbis say about Genesis 3:15”
            I replied;
            http://www.hadavar.org/critical-issues/messianic-prophecy/the-torah/genesis-3-the-seed-of-the-woman/rabbinic-support/

          • Dina says:

            CP, I only follow this blog, so if you don’t posting that here I would appreciate it. Thank you!

          • CP says:

            Okay Dina,
            How about this instead:
            Rabbinic Support
            Genesis 3:15 is taken as Messianic by these rabbinic authorities.

            Rabbi David Kimchi:
            As Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of The Messiah the Son of David, who shall wound Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.
            Midrash Rabbah(23):
            Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve has respect to that Seed which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is the Messiah, the King.
            Dr. Alfred Edersheim in his classic work, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (appendix 9), mentions additional rabbinic opinions supporting the understanding that Genesis 3:15 refers to the Messiah.

            This well-known passage is paraphrased, with express reference to the Messiah, in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the so-called Jerusalem Targum. Schottgen conjectures that the Talmudic designation of “heels of the Messiah” in reference to the near Advent of the Messiah in the description of the troubles of those days may have been chosen partly with a view to this passage.[3]
            Dr. Edersheim’s remark is confirmed by Franz Delitzsch in his work, Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession, with the addition of a Messianic link to one of the midrashim.

            The Palestinian Targum testifies that in Gen. iii.15 there is promised a healing of the bite in the heel from the serpent, which is to take place “at the end of the days, in the days of the King Messiah.” In the Palestinian Midrash to Genesis (Bereshith Rabba xii) we read: “The things which God created perfect since man sinned have become corrupt and do not return to their proper condition until the son of Perez (i.e. according to Gen. xxxviii. 29, Ruth iv. 18 ff. the Messiah out of the tribe of Judah) comes.”
            Additional Messianic links are revealed by Joseph Samuel C.F. Frey in his two volume work, Joseph and Benjamin.

            Our ancient Rabbis, as with one voice, have declared that by the seed of the woman, who was to bruise the head of the serpent is meant the Messiah. You know as well as I, their common saying, “that before the serpent had wounded our first parents, God had prepared a plaster for their healing; and as soon as sin had made its entrance into our world, the Messiah had made his appearance.” Hence both the Targums, that of Onkelos, and that of Jonathan, say “that the voice which our first parents heard walking in the garden, was the Memra Jehovah, ie. the word of the Lord, or the Messiah, who is always meant by this expression;… In the Targum of Jonathan, and that of Jerusalem, it is said, “the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent, and they shall obtain healing, or a plaster for the heel, (the hurt received by the Serpent,) in the days of Messiah the King.”
            It is self-evident from these references that our understanding of Genesis 3:15 as a prophecy of the Messiah falls within the Jewish frame of reference. It is not a position dreamed up by some non-Jewish missionary intent on deceiving gullible Jews into forsaking their people and their religion. The Messianic impact of this prophecy is very clearly seen by the rabbis.

          • Dina says:

            CP, you gave a lot of sources, so I’ll deal with them one at a time.

            I checked the first one, Radak, on Genesis 3:15, in Hebrew. I don’t know where you’re quoting from, but Radak (the acronym for R’ David Kimchi) says that the love the snake pretended to Eve would now be turned to hate, but that hate would not last forever. In the messianic era that hatred will disappear, and he quotes Isaiah 11:8 which says that babies will play near snakes without coming to harm.

            I think this is the opposite of what Christians believe–that this was a prophecy that Jesus would overcome Satan. Radak is taking this literally and saying that the friendship between the two will be restored.

            CP, you don’t read or speak Hebrew. I think you’ve been had.

            I’ll check the other sources some other time if God is willing and I have the time.

          • Dina says:

            Kind of like your claims about the haftorah without knowing about it. I think you should be more careful when quoting missionary literature. By now you should know it cannot be trusted.

          • CP This selection basically contains three quotes with the third one repeated a few times – Rabbi Kimchi, Medrash rabba 23 and Targum

            Dina already showed you that Rabbi Kimchi does not say what the missionaries tell you he said

            Medrash Rabba 23 is NOT a comment on Genesis 3:15 it is a comment on 4:25

            So the first two quotes are simply lies –

            The Palestinian Targum is also misquoted – it speaks of a healing in the time of the Messiah but says nothing about the Messiah putting in an appearance earlier or providing the healing

            CP – why do you keep on going back to people who have no regard for truth?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            It is particularly galling for these liars to use Rabbi Kimchi to prop up their corrupt theology. Rabbi Kimchi, a medieval Jewish sage, was an outspoken opponent of Christian abuse of our holy Scripture. If they think he is a good authority, they should read what he wrote against Christain polemical use of our sacred texts. Are they going to accept what he wrote? Of course not. They are using and abusing his good name the way they use and abuse our holy Torah.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            I’ve clearly and LITERALLY shown you the ‘stones not left on another’ refers to 1) buildings and. 2) those SEEN leaving the Temple. You can put your fingers in your ears and sing but it doesn’t change the facts. You are like a woman who replies to a person pointing out a dead dog; “Oh, it not dead, its full of bacteria and parasites, its full of life”

            If you’d be honest with yourself you’d know you’re wrong on this and there are better arguments in your favor. However it does show me something about you; if you can’t admit such clear it evidence that proves nothing except Yeshua called this one right, how can you be expected to honestly wrestle with more ambiguous evidence or evidence with greater gravity to your position? It shows you lie to yourself.

          • Dina says:

            No, you haven’t shown anything at all. You’ve simply made declarations, as is your wont. The Western Wall doesn’t become not a part of the Temple on your say-so. Neither does which buildings could be seen at that time and which buildings remained.

            Why do you continue to refuse to answer to the other two failed prophecies?

          • CP The Western wall is not merely a “retaining wall” that couldn’t be seen it was one of the walls of the Temple mount and a significant one at that – 2000 years ago the Rabbis predicted it would not be destroyed – they did this without claiming prophecy (Bamidbar rabba 11:2)

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            I would add that the gospels were written after Jesus’s lifetime and were put into his mouth by the gospels writers. It is all too easy to put a prediction of the Temple’s destruction into someone’s mouth after the fact. (The least they could have done was check their facts, but the gospel writers were nothing if not careless of the truth.)

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            You asked;
            “Why do you continue to refuse to answer to the other two failed prophecies”

            I’ve dealt with many missionaries and learned never to be led onto another point until the point currently being discussed is finished. This is their standard M.O. when their logic is being exposed as fallacious.

            Which brings us to the point at hand: You claim the prophecy fails because stones of a retaining wall not part of the buildings that cannot be seen exiting the Temple were left upon one another when the prophecy clearly refers to stones of “great buildings” that can be “seen” leaving the Temple.
            Why don’t you have some integrity and admit your mistake here. I said I came here to learn and I stand by that statement, but just because someone comes to learn doesn’t make them stupid or gullible. The integrity of those teaching must be tested by those learning.
            The point here is no longer the prophecy, the point is your honesty.

          • CP you said,
            ….”never to be led onto another point until the point currently being discussed is finished. This is their standard M.O. when their logic is being exposed as fallacious.”

            This is true – a good observation. And your point about the stones of the temple buildings is accurate.

            The trouble is, the voice of “Christian missionaries” is generally synonymous with the voice of Paul the false apostle. I’m not denying that “spiritual blindness” is also an issue. But I think many Jews reject the false “Christ” of Paul (who supposedly abolished the Law), because they don’t recognize the voice of the stranger, and they are right about that.

            Most Christians preach PAAL as the main course, and Jesus is like an optional sprig of parsley as a garnish on the side….. They will preach an entire sermon, never quote or even mention Jesus, then close with a perfunctory prayer “in Jesus name”…..

            The classic question I’ve raised on hundreds of blogs remains unanswered by most – which commandment is the most important, the one in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 or the one in Leviticus 19:18? Not what did Jesus say, but which commandment was He quoting? They won’t give a straight answer and admit their idol Paul was wrong – will you Gean? 😉

          • Dina says:

            Actually, CP, the MO of missionaries is to attack their opponent’s character and can call them dishonest, producing a two-fold benefit to the missionary. One, the opponent feels personally under attack and becomes flustered. Two, if the missionary says he is talking to a dishonest person, he is now absolved of the responsibility to carefully and fairly examine his opponent’s arguments–because who takes dishonest people seriously?

            Your assertions do not the truth make. The Temple was our Temple and we consider the outer walls to be a part of it. If Jesus was a part of our nation he would have agreed. And of course you could see the outer walls when exiting the Temple, despite your wishing you can’t. Plus, you could see the outer buildings as well. (This is self-evident.)

            You refuse to move on to the next point until I agree with you. Well, you’re wrong, so I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with you.

            The remaining two prophecies are part of the same point, so by addressing them you would anyway not be moving on to a new point. You have consistently refused to address them with Jim (who did raise the stone prophecy, my mistake–sorry, Jim). What is your excuse to Jim?

            Are you avoiding the other two prophecies?

          • CP says:

            Matthew Perri,
            I agree the writings of Paul in their current interpretation leads many astray, I think a bigger question is; Why can’t or won’t some exercise the ability to separate the Jewish Yeshua from the Roman Hellenized version of Jesus? I can understand Gentiles not wanting to come under the Law, and perhaps they don’t need to. But what I don’t understand is Jews refusing to wrestle Yeshua back from the Gentiles and correctly explain his teaching in light of Torah.

          • CP
            Because many people are chanting Paul’s mantra, “All Scripture is God-breathed”, and they think of THEIR “Bible” as “one book” which is the only truth – and may a plague be on every other religious “book.” Many Jews have forgotten the meaning of the acronym Tanakh, and they think of it as “The Hebrew Bible” which is all one book and “inerrant” – even if they don’t use that word or say so directly or consciously……

            They realize that Paul’s message in the New Testament is false – but this is the message that most “missionaries” are pushing, insisting it’s “the inerrant word of God” according to Paul…… in “God’s Holy Word, The Bible….”

          • CP
            I remember seeing a famous TV preacher / Mega-church pastor, who is famous for being supportive of Israel, holding up a Bible and proclaiming forcefully, QUOTE: “Either it’s all God’s Word of none of it is.” That is a lie of Satan. It’s idolatry, more accurately Bibliolatry, idolizing The Bible. So according to Him one must accept Paul the false apostle and his false teaching as “the word of God.”

            If a Jew is confronted by such a black and white statement, and looks at Paul’s false teaching, he would likely conclude, OK so NONE of it is God’s Word….
            And they can’t hear the voice of Yahshua through the Apostles He appointed, because it is drowned out by the voice of the PAALS.

          • Dina says:

            Oops, I made a typing mistake, in my comment https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%EF%BB%BFclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-32048.

            I wanted to write to CP that Jim did not raise the stone prophecy; instead I wrote that he did raise it. My apologies to Jim! I wanted to know what CP’s excuse to Jim is for not responding to his challenges on the other prophecies.

          • Dina & LarryB
            For Moses writing in first person, (the voice of Moses) you can start with Deuteronomy 1:6 through 4:40 as a beginning… with plenty more later on.

            LarryB
            Exodus 25;10-16,
            31:1-10
            35:30-36:3
            37:1-9
            vs. Deuteronomy 10:1-5 where Moses claims all the credit

          • Dina says:

            Matthew, it’s very easy to support a false statement with out-of-context citations. Look at the previous verse in Deuteronomy 1 and you will see that it’s written in third-person POV. I’m beginning to think you do not know the difference between first-person and third-person POV. Time to go back to English class!

            Furthermore, I find it difficult to debate with you because your approach is fundamentally unserious. I would like to say fundamentally silly, because you play games. I do not play games. I do not see the relevance of the POV from which the Bible is written and why it is so important to you. So you can take this point wherever you like with someone else.

        • LarryB says:

          Matthew Perry
          If I can take a stab at this. The most important commandment is
          “Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one”, and who was the nation of Israel standing in front of?

  10. Pharisee Friend,
    You said above in passing, “Joshua wrote his book (or much of it) ”
    I agree with your assumption here-
    that Joshua was the main personality, the main voice, behind the book either as author directly or overseeing and approving the bulk of the content. In other words, it’s “his book.”
    Yet,
    I see more evidence in the texts of Job and Jonah to indicate that they also “wrote their own books” than what I see in the text of Joshua. So I am baffled how a person could be so sure that Joshua “wrote” Joshua, but equally sure that there is no evidence Job and Jonah “wrote” their own books.

  11. Pharisee Friend, you wrote that Jesus’ miracles were QUOTE:
    ” nothing near Moses or Joshua – the way a miracle is measured in Scripture is by the amount of people it impacted”

    Regarding the amount of people impacted, this parable makes a point you may not have considered.

    A new parable
    (Renewed and refreshed, not “brand new”)

    Moses explains why I WILL BE is true even though He’s “new.”

    After Moses met I WILL BE at the Burning Bush, he went to tell the elders of Israel.
    Let’s listen in…………….

    MOSES: I WILL BE, the God of your fathers – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – appeared to me and said,…..

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Stop ! Which god?

    MOSES: I WILL BE.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Who is I WILL BE? That name doesn’t appear in our Holy Scriptures passed down to us by our fathers. Why are you following some new god that our fathers never knew?

    MOSES: I WILL BE IS the God of your fathers.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Who said that?

    MOSES: I WILL BE….

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: The God of our fathers is Elohim [Genesis 1:26].

    MOSES: But our God is infinite, and this One True God is now manifesting Himself in a new way using a new name, to reflect a new kind of relationship with people.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: If it’s new it isn’t true – and if it’s true in isn’t new.

    MOSES: Throughout the Scriptures, God progressively revealed more of Himself using different names, didn’t He?

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: So you believe in “Progressive Revelation”? That the One True unchanging God somehow “changed” through time?

    MOSES: God is like a husband, and his people like his bride. But just as in any relationship, we don’t immediately know everything about our partner. We progressively learn more as we grow in relationship together.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Why would God suddenly identify Himself using a “new name” other than Elohim?

    MOSES: He has done this before, recorded in the Scriptures.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Where?

    MOSES: In the beginning was Elohim.
    But Yahweh was right after that [Genesis 2].
    Later God revealed Himself and spoke, identifying Himself as El-Shaddai, “The Almighty God” [Genesis 17:1-2] [Exodus 6:2-3]

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Well, according to the Scriptures handed down to us by our forefathers through thousands of years, you have a point..

    MOSES: Right – and I WILL BE is a “new name” for Elohim, Yahweh, and El-Shaddai.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Because I WILL BE said so. And you believe that? Why?

    MOSES: Because I can turn this stick into a snake.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Now we know you are following Satan! Look at the Scriptures, In the Beginning, in the Garden of Eden, chapter 3. Anyway, Pharaoh’s pagan magicians can do that too. Can you pull a rabbit out of a hat? Signs and wonders don’t prove that you are following Elohim, the One True God.

    MOSES: I can also make my hand leprous, and pour some water on the ground and make it turn to blood.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Can you do anything that is actually useful, helpful, positive, or constructive- like bring us some food? Or something really dramatic, like raise a dead man to life after he’s been in the grave for 4 days, or heal a man born blind?

    MOSES: I WILL BE told me that He will do even greater things, so that His glory will be displayed on a grand scale, and you will be His witness nation as His covenant people. I WILL BE said: “I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them.”

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: Which would be a grander scale – killing every single man, woman, child and animal in one country, Egypt, and obliterating every building in Egypt, leaving nothing but dust – or the flood in the time of Noah?

    MOSES: Hmmmm. I see you point.

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: So we already ARE a witness community of people, under Elohim’s covenant with Noah, according to the Scriptures. Our God displayed his power using Noah’s Ark of the Covenant. I suppose in addition to a having a new name, your new god wants to make a new ark of the covenant – probably a much smaller, scaled down version……

    MOSES: Well, actually…… let’s talk about the ark thing later. The main thing is, Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, and I WILL BE are all the same God. Are you saying the amazing signs and wonders that I WILL BE will do here in Egypt would not convince you?

    ELDERS OF ISRAEL: If you want to talk about destruction on a grand scale, they would be relatively unimpressive compared to the grand scale of the flood in Noah’s time.

  12. Concerned Reader says:

    Mathew Perri, your parable was all well and good, but I think you missed something.

    You point out that “I will be” is a new name unknown to the fathers. However, “i will be What I Will Be” is a descriptive title, as is Elohim. Its descriptive of something that only Israelite culture believed about the nature of the divine.

    Elohim simply means “mighty one,” that’s why the name is applied to judges and G-d in different verses.

    The unique name of G-d, and then this “new” name “I will be” would not be seen as new at all, but as a descriptor of what is the unique Jewish view of G-d.

    When Moses tells the Elders: “I will be what I will be” has sent me to you, they would understand that name as the unique descriptor of G-d that no gentile Egyptian could possibly convey.

    The highest deity to the ancient Egyptian was Re, the god that is the sun disc. Pharaoh with his crook and flail also represented a deity, in that his dynasty was seen as descended from the gods. The Nile too was the lifeblood of Egyptian religious cult.

    For Moses to say to the elders of Israel, “I will be what I will be,” would be like saying “the G-d that is above all the attributes of nature has sent me to you,”

    Moses would be saying, “The gentiles worship the whole host of heaven, the heavenly array, their chief deity is the sun disk. Not so with us.”

    Not so is it for Israel, where the name “I will be” would instantly convey the true meaning of the essence of what the G-d of their fathers is, which is unique to Jewish understanding.

    If Moses had said, “hey guys, the mighty bush has spoken to me, and it carries our salvation in its sap from its leaves, its great fire burned with the voice,” Then the elders would have said, “what is this guy smoking?”

    It is because Moses said, “I will be” that Israel knew it was hashem he spoke about.

    • Concerned Reader,
      Doesn’t Yahshua mean “Yahweh saves”, and wasn’t Israel looking or a Messiah to save them?

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Save from what? From their enemies. From persecution. From the exile. These things the Torah says the messiah will rescue Jews from.

        Not only has Jesus not saved Jews from enemies, but his words against Jewish leaders, and his generalizations about his people have caused grwat physical, and emotional harm to come to them.

        Believe me when I say that I undrrstand where Christians can see Jesus’ life as redemptive to them, but Jews have had no such positive experience of Jesus. In his name Jews have been accused, viewed with fear, etc.

        The Jewish experience of Jesus is not a redemotive one. He has not daved, his words have killed, mot saved. That is the historical experience of Jesus that Jews have.

        • Concerned Reader says:

          Mathew Perri, the difference is that Moses did not teach Jews anything their fathers didnt already know. He never said, “you can only come to the father through me.”

          Jesus viewed anyone who questioned him as somehow spiritually defective. Peter for example was rebuked for lementing the possibility that Jesus might die.

          Moses by contrast had his own doubts about his mission.

        • CP says:

          Concerned Reader?
          Really?
          Then how do you account for the very first Messisanic Prophecy in Torah? In Gen 3:15 we have the first mention of a coming Messiah BEFORE nations even existed. So how is it you make the redemptive salvation of a promised Messiah only about enemy nations? Do you know what the Rabbis say about first mention?

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Who tells you which prophecies are messianic and which are not?

          • CP says:

            Concerned Reader,
            Please. It is self evident Genesis 3:15 is Messianic. However if you think I’m mistaken, rather than deflecting please provide your reasoning why 3:15 is Not Messainic.

          • CP
            You mean this seriously? Genesis 3:15 Messianic? What is Messianic about it? It is no more Messianic than Genesis 16:10

          • Dina says:

            I’d like to know what the rabbis say about Genesis 3:15, actually. Jews have never understood it the way you do; it is absolutely not self-evident from a straightforward reading of the text that this is a messianic prophecy. The first time I ever heard that interpretation was from a Christian missionary.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Clearly Genesis 3:15 is not self-evidently about the Messiah or you would not need to pull in other resources to prove it. The point might appear pedantic, and normally I would not comment on it. In this case, however, one must comment on the inaccuracy of the term ‘self-evident’. It is not self-evident, but you have been taught to read it that way. The verse would require serious work to read it without commentary and see it as Messianic.

            You have confused how you have been trained to read something with the natural reading.

            Jim

          • LarryB says:

            CP
            your quoting from a Christian site and saying rabbi’s say this about Genesis 3:15?
            havadar.org is a Christian site not a Jewish site. Yes other Christians agree with you.
            Can I now quote from Christians who converted to Judaism and then quote from their new beliefs as being what Christians believe? Seriously?

          • CP says:

            Oh Jim,
            You are grasping at straws. I was challenged that Genesis 3:15 is self evident therefore I posted Rabbis declaring the same. In fact if you read to the bottom of the article I posted for Dina (who requested it) it actually uses the words “self evident”.

          • CP
            You obviously do not understand Rabbinic medrash – they are not providing commentary on the verse. You also don’t understand what the word “self-evident” means – it means evidence that needs NO commentary to bring it to light One such Messianic “self-evident” prophecy would be Ezekiel 37:15-28
            In any case what do you see from Genesis 3:15? That Messiah will be born from a virgin – that idiocy is utterly refuted from Genesis 16:10 (unless you believe that Mohammed was also born from a virgin) That the Messiah will crush a figurative serpent? – If that is what you are attempting to “prove” from this verse – then first realize that you moved into the subjective realm of “figurative” and second – no one disputes this concept that Messiah will crush the figurative serpent – so what exactly is “self-evident” from this verse? I also wonder if you noticed that the verse does not mention the word “Messiah” or anything that would make us think of him

          • CP says:

            LarryB,
            I could of been dishonest, hiding the source but didn’t. I strive to be as honest as I can here and expect the same from others. If we are not all being honest then it becomes a waste of time. As to your assertion of Christian vs Jewish source; it makes no difference to me, truth is truth. I want to know both perspectives and be able to accept one or the other or both. The point of the post was to disprove the allegation that viewing Genesis 3:15 as Messianic is exclusive to Christianity. The source quotes Rabbis who view the Genesis 3:15 as Messianic. It would be intellectually dishonest to discount evidence merely based on the source. Granted it may be a reason to dig further, but not a reason for rejection.

          • Dina says:

            When the source is found to be unreliable, tread carefully. This particular source made stuff up about the Radak, as I showed you.

          • Dina says:

            Once a source is proven to be unreliable, it is foolish to continue seeking information from that source. For example, I don’t get my news from The National Enquirer.

          • Dina,
            Is your standard for written sources that they be 100% accurate 100% of the time?
            (sort of like Paul’s mantra “All Scripture is God-breathed)?

            Who made the ark of the Covenant? Bezalel or Moses?
            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%ef%bb%bfclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-32005

          • Dina says:

            No, my standard for written sources is that they not make stuff up out of thin air. As an example, I gave The National Enquirer.

          • Dina,
            Speaking of making stuff up out of thin air…..
            Who made the ark of the Covenant? Bezalel or Moses?

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            You asked;
            “CP – why do you keep on going back to people who have no regard for truth?”

            To answer; I am searching for the truth admist the most emotionally charged schism mankind has ever known. I believe emotions clouds the judgement of people on both sides. For example; considering the wailing wall next to wilsons arch as part of the Temple when the Temple dimesions are clearly defined by Scripture. Acceptance of this one prophecy by itself doesn’t prove anything about Yeshua except he got one right, yet some are unwilling to concede such an obvious and minor point shows decisions are being made upon emotion. I willing accept verifiable proof from both sides and use the argument of one side to test the other. For example; you’ve countered the claim Genesis 3:15 “self evident” is Messianic. I respect your opinion and am going to research the information you provided (wish you’d provided more). But from a laymen’s perspective aside from all technicalities; the verse plainly and simply promises one born of a woman will be struck by the same serpent that struck Adam and Eve, but this time the seed of the woman will prevail bringing healing.

            This brings up Eziekel 15-28 which you provided as Messianic. I wonder why you did not include everything to verse one? Before verses 15-28 can be fulfilled, those dry bones once cut off from God must be restored. To me the restoration of dry bones can be linked with the promise in Genesis 3:15. If I may presume to say; the difference we have is you say everything is done at one time with one manifestation of Messiah, whereas I say the Messiah started a preliminary work 2000 years ago (dry bones are living – those once cut off are returning to God) which will have its cumulation in Ezeikel 15-28.
            Why should we be at odds? Is there really that much difference?

          • CP We (The Jewish community loyal to God) live the Temple – one of the tractates in the mishna deals exclusively with the Temple’s dimensions – for you to tell us that it is “obvious” that the western wall was “just” a retaining wall tells me that you have no clue about what went on there – I suggest you get one of the popular picture books about the Temple – just consider – if it was just a retaining wall – why did teh rabbis predict that it won’t be destroyed ? What was its significance? And how did they know that 2000 years later it would still be here to remind people of the Temple that Jesus denigrated?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B
            1 Kings 6 and 2 Chronicles 3 both give the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple, Herod wanting to expand the grandeur of the 2nd Temple was limited by the dimensions given in Scripture so all he could expand in size was the Temple Mount. So he built retaining walls to install a grand patio around the Temple. That a Rabbi predicted this wall would not be destroyed is significant but of what? I am surprised you of all people would consider this prediction of the destruction of the Temple a failure. Why is it absolutely nothing Yeshua did or said is allowed to be accepted. Just because Yeshua made a prediction that came true, doesn’t make him Messiah, but the fact that something so obvious and simple is rejected reveals a decision based on emotion rather than fact.

            Perhaps there is a Pharisaical group who doesn’t need the first phase of Messiah, but that you’d deny others this opportunity to return to God is suspect unless absolute proof of the contrary can be given.

          • Dina says:

            CP, Jesus did not say that only the Solomonic dimensions of the Temple would be destroyed. He said the Temple and its buildings–which would include what Jews at the time considered part of the
            Temple. No one walked around the Temple differentiating between the two: “Oh, the Solomonic dimensions end here and the Herodian extensions begin there.” The Temple was the Temple.

            You have proclaimed from on high that the Western Wall was not part of the Temple, so therefore it is true and all who disagree must perforce be dishonest or emotional.

            You have proclaimed from on high that the Western Wall could not be seen upon exiting the Temple, so therefore it is true and all who disagree must perforce be dishonest or emotional.

            You have proclaimed from on high that the remains of the Temple outbuildings today could not be seen upon exiting the Temple, so therefore it is true and all who disagree must perforce be dishonest or emotional.

            According to you and all your proclamations, this “prophecy” of Jesus (doubtless placed in his mouth by the gospel writer after the Temple’s destruction) was fulfilled. And the only reason I fail to see this is because I have a problem with honesty.

            You have apparently never encountered the idea that good and honest people can see things differently and still be good and honest.

            In the end, you have failed to make the case that this prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled in exactly the way that he said. Would you perhaps consider the possibility that you need this prophecy to be true because of a problem with honesty or an emotional attachment to Jesus? If you can answer affirmatively, would you agree that a little humility is in order before accusing Rabbi B. of emotion and me dishonesty?

            Now that you have failed to prove your point, let us see what you make of the remaining two prophecies.

            In other news, Rabbi B. and I have shown you that your source for the rabbinic position on Genesis 3:15 contained nothing but misinformation. I would have you know that you only see this verse as messianic because it was presented to you that way; it would never have occurred to you otherwise, as it never had occurred to me. So will you retract your statement on rabbinic support for the messianic implications of Genesis 3:15?

          • CP I pointed out already that the prediction of the Temple’s destruction was firmly in place before Jesus came on the scene – Daniel had already predicted it years before. Jesus added the idea that not one stone will be left upon another? What was the point of that? Clearly his point was that the denigration of the Temple will be physically complete – the Rabbis believed that God would leave a remnant so as not to complete the physical degradation of the Temple The word “Temple” in the vernacular of the time refers to the entire complex of buildings – the sanctuary itself did not consist of more than one building – and the Temple mount was not an insignificant aspect of the Temple – a degree of sanctity applies to the entire Mount – Ezekiel’s vision included the Mount And why do you say that my rejection of this prophecy is based on “emotion rather than fact”?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP
            By the way the money changers changed their money in the Temple Mount – just to give you an idea about how the authors of the Christian Scriptures use the word “Temple”

          • Pharisee Friend, CP and Dina,
            It occurs to me that sometimes in the pages of Scripture, the same words or terms can sometimes “be used loosely” rather than more strictly, or they can refer to different things.

            For example, “the Testimony” in Exodus 16 is not equal to “this book of the Law” at the end of Deuteronomy, which is not equal to “the book of the Law of God” at the end of Joshua, which is not equal to “The Law” referred to many times in Psalm 119, which is not equal to the 66 Books of the Bible….. Maybe a little leeway is in order about “what Jesus meant”, rather than insisting it must mean every stone of the entire Temple Mount.

          • Dina says:

            Of course you would like to have that leeway, Matthew, of course.

          • Dina,
            The Ark of the Covenant was literally at the physical center of Jewish worship for 1500 years. Who made the Ark? Moses, or Bezalel? I’ve quoted you multiple chapters in Exodus, recording the voice of God naming Bezalel and appointing him, Moses echoing God’s voice, and then the record of Bezalel making the Ark.

            You aren’t going to throw Exodus in the trash, deny Bezalel the credit for his work, and give the credit instead to another man simply based on this other man’s own testimony about himself – are you?

          • Matthew Perri
            You insist on reading this with your ears closed – I answered this many times over – just in case you forgot – what evidence do you have that Moses expected that Deuteronomy should be read independent of the first four books?

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Exodus is overwhelmingly clear.
            BEZALEL made the Ark AFTER Moses got the second copy of the 10 commandments.

            In Deuteronomy, Moses claims HE made the Ark himself BEFORE he went up and got the second copy. And Bezalel’s name is absent from the book of Deuteronomy.

            Moses wrote Deuteronomy himself, in the first person. This is different than any other of the earlier books.

          • Dina says:

            Matthew, can you give us an example of first person point-of-view in Deuteronomy?

          • Matthew Perri I don’t know how many times I wrote this already – but Bezalel’s ark wasn’t used until the first of Nissan – Moses’ ark was used until then – if you read Deuteronomy in context of Exodus – as it was meant to be read – this would be clear to you

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Larry B says:

            Matthew Perry
            Can you post which scripture your claiming exodus and duet. concerning the ark, Moses etc.? It’s too hard to look up on my iPad as this thread is very long.

          • CP says:

            R’B & Dina,
            I understand your point, but with all due respect your point is moot. In the context of the issue we are discussing it is only Yeshua’s intent that counts, since he is the one that said the words. Others can come later and say the retaining wall is part of the Temple, but was that the intent of Yeshua’s words? Therefore we simply look to the words he said, the context of the words spoken and where he was when he said them to get a feel for what he meant. Simply put; in context and in agreement with Daniel he declared the destruction of the great “Buildings seen” on the Temple Mount.

            If you’d like we can go through fulfilled prophecies of the Prophets of Tanach nitpicking them apart claiming them to be false prophecies based on some technicality…..but I’d rather not. However it might prove to be a profitable exercise only to reveal the double standard being applied to this particular prophecy.

          • Dina says:

            CP, there you go again, declaring what Jesus’s intent was although he didn’t say, and declaring what was and was not considered part of the Temple at that time, and declaring what could and could not be seen upon exiting the Temple. Your declarations do not the facts make.

            So why don’t you at least concede that the fulfillment of this prophecy is inconclusive and move on to discussing the other two prophecies? Is there a reason you are avoiding them?

          • CP Could you entertain the possibility that based on the literature of the time (including the Christian Scriptures) that we (people like Dina and myself) have developed in our mind an understanding of the mentality of the times and that we hear Jesus’ words (not a stone on a stone) in that context and that it is obvious to us that the Western Wall is a refutation to the point he was trying to make and that the Christian apologetics that you’ve been reading were guided by emotion rather than by truth? Can you see that as a possibility? Just consider the fact that these apologists told you that the wall was not visible in Jesus’ times which is clearly a falsehood – these apologists are not guided by truth

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Btw Dina,
            I did some research on Genesis 3:15. I’ll concede although it appears “self evident” to me it is not self evident to everyone and R’B makes a good point for not being self evident; it doesn’t directly use the word “Messiah’. But I also found since even though there is sparse Rabbinic support for this being Messianic, but still support nonetheless, it is not exclusively a Christian interpretation, although I would concede it is predominantly a Christian interpretation.

          • Dina says:

            CP,

            I commend you for at least partly conceding this point. The source you showed us for rabbinic support contained nothing but misinformation. So I’d like to see the sparse rabbinic support you still see for this verse.

            I submit to you again that the only reason you see this passage as self-evidently messianic is the way it was presented to you. You would not have come to that conclusion on your own from a straightforward reading of the text.

            I posted loads of comments to you last night; I hope you find and read them all. They are, as usual, excellent and well worth reading ;).

          • Larry B says:

            Matthew Perry
            The title above debut. 10-1 in my bible, it says “Moses builds a temporary ark”. I’m sure you already know this so I won’t cut and paste the reason Moses made one. What makes you question Moses saying he made an ark?

          • LarryB
            I looked up the relevant verses and posted them, again, because you asked me to.
            The least you could do is read all the verses you asked me to post. THEN comment. (not quote one verse from who-knows-what translation out of context.)

          • LarryB says:

            Matthew Perry
            I did read your verses, now you might re-read what I wrote. I did not quote any verses.
            In fact I had a follow up question.

          • LarryB
            How about you quote me Deuteronomy 10:2, 10:3, and 10:5, and then compare that with 10:1 ?

          • Larry B says:

            Matthew Perry
            You do not need me to quote anything and your question makes no sense. But if you do not want to answer my question thats ok.

          • LarryB
            You said QUOTE: “The title above debut. (Deuteronomy) 10-1 in my bible, it says “Moses builds a temporary ark”.

            That “title” was added to the text by whoever translated your version – that would be “adding to Torah”, something I believe you are against, are you not?

            But you are not stupid. Any Seventh Grader can read Deuteronomy 10:1-5 and see that Moses claimed all the credit for “building the Ark” and putting the tablets in it – the very same Ark that was still holding the tablets when Moses wrote these words 40 years later in Deuteronomy 10:1-5.

            If you are saying that “Moses builds a temporary ark” is an accurate summary of this paragraph, that means that the tablets of the 10 commandments were still in the “temporary ark that Moses made” 40 years later. I don’t believe that, for obvious reasons from the Torah. So I have answered your question. Do you believe that?

          • Matthew Perri Any third grader can tell you that Moses never meant that Deuteronomy be read outside of the context of Exodus – see Deuteronomy 24:8 where he refers back to the book of Leviticus – obviously expecting his readership to have possession of that book Your theory bout Deuteronomy is false – please stop posting idiocy unless you can disprove the premise (that Moses expected his readership to possess the other four books)

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • LarryB
            For whichever scribe added to Torah and dreamed up the paragraph title “Moses builds a temporary Ark.”…..
            This one’s for him.
            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%ef%bb%bfclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-31703

          • Pharisee Friend,
            you said, “see Deuteronomy 24:8 where he [Moses] refers back to the book of Leviticus”

            I looked, but all I see is Moses asserting his authority and saying “Do as I say.” Although this COULD be a reference to the book of Leviticus, that is far from certain. I think it would be accurate to say you are “reading that into the text.”

            Although it is not conclusive, I see that passage and it’s context as leaning in the other direction, hinting that Moses could well have been writing Deuteronomy in order to “go around” the Levites, who controlled the other 4 books, based on the authority God gave to Aaron’s family and to them.

          • Matthew Perri Amazing – a verse where Moses is telling the people to listen to the priests and Levites was written to circumvent the authority of the priests and Levites!! Do you say the same about Deuteornomy 17:9,18; 19:17 and 21:5? Moses was trying to take away authority from the Levites?!

            And we are “reading things into the text”?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Yes Moses was undermining the authority of the Levites, and going around them, and around the first 4 books, which the Levites probably controlled.

            Deuteornomy 17:9,….”and the judge who is in office at that time….

            17:18; “this law” = the Book of Deuteronomy. The King would not need to concern himself with all the sacrificial rituals

            19:17-21 You only mentioned verse 17. Please look at the following verses.
            Moses is undermining the Levites and giving power to the judges, whoever they are… He is making the Levites only figureheads, and setting up a military dictatorship run by a General and “judges”.

            and 21:5 You didn’t mention 21:2 “your elders and judges”…….The Levites have a little power here in this very small issue. But again if look at the surrounding verses, the Levites are figureheads – it’s judges and elders who really do things.

            I am curious – what is YOUR explanation for the difference in wording of the 10th Commandment between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5?

          • Matthew Perri This is getting more and more bizarre – Exodus also gives quite a bit of power to judges – the first four books don’t give any powers of arbitration to the priests (except for one passing mention in Leviticus 10:11 – and in specific situations in chapters 13-15) Deuteronomy puts them together with the judges – going so far as to say as that by their mouth should be every argument and every strife (21:5) and you say that Deuteronomy is undermining the position of the priests As for the differences in wording between Exodus and Deuteronomy – the differences are minor they do not affect the meaning of the commandments and we understand that God gave Israel to understand all the meaning that is inherent in both versions

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            Regarding the 10th Commandment,
            I agree with you – “As for the differences in wording between Exodus and Deuteronomy – the differences are minor they do not affect the meaning.”
            Yes, true.
            But the difference that does exist is evidence that Moses did not have either Exodus or the Tablets of the Testimony available to him when we wrote Deuteronomy. No it’s not perfectly “conclusive” just by itself – but I’ve listed other pieces of evidence to make the case for this view – that Deuteronomy was written by Moses pretty much alone, without the wholehearted inclusion of, or cooperation of, the Levites, after Aaron was dead.

            Moses literally erased Bezalel from his history book, and took personal credit for Bezalel’s work.
            Moses blamed Aaron for something that neither God nor anyone else had ever blamed Aaron for before, the Golden Calf.
            And Moses marginalized Aaron’s authority and the unique authority of Aaron’s family, and never mentioned any of Aaron’s accomplishments. instead, Moses just mentioned Aaron’s death twice, and one sentence making Aaron a scapegoat.

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            Hope you don’t mind me butting in here, but I’ve some questions about this:

            Okay, I get in the wilderness God appointed judges from among the people. But what I don’t get is where does God indicate there is to be an authoritative succession of Judges? And if there is, weren’t these Judges only suppose to handle the minor disputes between people? Is there a direct line of succession from the Judges to the Pharisees? Or to the Rabbinical system? If there is, what gives them the authority to decide doctrine, if the original Judges decided disputes among people?

            Forgive my bluntness, but isn’t the Pharisaical system what first initiated the schism between Jew and Christian? In hind sight don’t you think acceptance of the first talmudim of Yeshua as a sect of Judaism would have been better for everyone? The Pharisees could of said; we don’t accept Yeshua as Messiah nor Paul’s message of lawlessness, but if you want to remain in Judaism, this is the correct way to view a Messiah and you’re not allowed to kick Moses to the curb.

            I wonder if they’d taken that position what things would be like now?

          • CP Deuteronomy 16:18; 2Chronicles 19:10 gives you an idea that the institution of judges was ongoing and very broad in scope

            As for the first talmidim of Yeshua – how do you know who kicked who out of what? The book of Acts gives us to understand that the Jewish following was tolerated in Jerusalem and participated in the Temple rites. I imagine that with time their hatred toward those who wouldn’t follow their beloved leader created an unbridgeable gap between them and the Jewish community – just read the love for the Jews and sense of brotherhood with the Jewish community that pours out of the pens of the writers of the Christian Scriptures 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Matthew Perri,
            I’ve been following your posts with interest, it is always interesting to see what others see in the text. But R’B makes a good point in claiming Deuteronomy was never intended to be read in isolation from the previous four Books. You are actually doing the same thing some do to Stephens speech before being stoned and what some do claiming the NT twists the OT.
            (May I suggest) you study some on “high context” texts vs “low context” text. In short; when evaluating a text (as you are doing) you must consider who it is written to, who are the intended readers. For example if Moses were writing to the Canaanites he would have to include a lot more detail explaining things every Israelite already understood. Therefore you’d call such a text “low context” meaning the readers having a low context need everything spelled out. But Moses is actually writing to a people possessing a “high context” they don’t need every little thing spelled out so Moses can skip over the many things he would assume they already knew. This would make Deuteronomy a “high context” text in light of the previous four Books. Meaning it takes a person already knowing the context to be able to understand it correctly.

            This is where Judaism excels, they come to the text with a Jewish context, unfortunately it is also their Achilles’ heel in that 1500-500 years ago tradition began to apply a tunnel vision approach to context, disallowing previous accepted contextual paradigms.

          • CP
            I think I catch a glimpse of your point about “high context” vs “low context”, and you said
            “R’B makes a good point in claiming Deuteronomy was never intended to be read in isolation from the previous four Books.” I appreciate his insights too.,
            Yet,
            I don’t want to “beg the question” and assume this claim is true and then interpret from there. I don’t see this true- rather, based on a growing amount of evidence I see, it seems rather the opposite. It seems like Deuteronomy WAS written to help Joshua solidify his leadership, overriding the God-given authority of the Levites.

            Dina challenged me where I see Deuteronomy being written by Moses in the first person.
            Lets save some time.
            In the first 30 chapters of Deuteronomy, with the exceptions, of 1:1-5 and 4:41-49,
            where are these 30 chapters NOT written by Moses in the first person? (It’s all Moses’ voice Dina !)

          • CP says:

            Jim says:
            December 20, 2016 at 2:41 pm
            CP,

            “Regarding judges:

            If you review our conversations, I think you will find that they fit within the context of Deuteronomy 17, and that many of the things you believe yourself able to interpret for yourself are necessarily reserved to the judges.

            Consider for example the definition of melacha. A working definition must be in place before a court can rule upon it. And since the penalty for breaking the Sabbath is so severe, the definition must be clear and known.”

            Comment;
            Whoa, whoa, whoa, not so fast!
            Per Deuteronomy 17 what are the responsibilities of the Judges? To write new Torah which will be authoritative from that moment forward to all generations until the world to come? That’s Not how I read it! Judges were to be appointed by the people to Judge according to existing Torah.
            If you will read Numbers 15, you will realize you’ve assumed some things not in the text. Namely that the man gathering sticks was judged by the Shof’tim. This is not the case and not even Moses himself judged the man. The text clearly indicates in two places it was ADONAI who judged the man.

            You Continue;
            “You do not believe that tying a knot is prohibited because you do not see it as work. The court, instituted by HaShem, maintains that tying a knot is prohibited. It is clear that if you teach otherwise, you elevate yourself above the court. It is also clear that you alienate yourself from the community that follows the rulings of that court. It is clear that their understanding of the law is the one that must be followed and that it is not a matter of personal opinion. “You must carry out fully the law that they interpret for you or the ruling that they announce to you; do not turn aside from the decision they announce to you, either to the right or the left” (Deut. 17:11). ”

            Comment;
            Again you assume the appointed Shof’tim have been given the authority to write new Torah, or shall we say “put a fence around Torah”. What’s the difference? It is clear you alienate yourself from Torah by following a addition to Torah written by men who overstep their charge of rendering decisions based on God’s Torah and write new torah in direct violation of God’s Torah.

            You write;
            “The same can be applied to determining whether or not Jesus was a prophet. If he is a false prophet or presumptuous, he is liable to capital punishment. It is a matter for the courts. The individual cannot assert his own authority to declare that Jesus is a prophet.”

            Comment;
            Is it coincidence or Divine providence you’d include this statement in the proximity of Deuteronomy 17? If you read verse 15 you will notice it is not the people, the Shof’tim, the Cohanim or the L’vi’im who chooses the king, it is ADONAI who chooses and Israel appoints. In my opinion ADONAI chose Yeshua but the religious leaders rebelled against ADONAI’s choice.

            You write:
            “It is pertinent also to consider whether or not Jesus can be the author of his own oral Torah. Obviously this cannot be the case. He, not being a judge, had not authority to interpret the law. And it would be futile for him to attempt to do so. Let us say that he determined something to be halachically valid and practiced it. And some objected and took him to the judges. Let us also say that the judges ruled that his practice violated the Torah. At that point, he is liable to their judgment. If he declares that his own ruling is correct, he is in violation of Torah. If he continues his practice, he is liable to the death penalty: “As for anyone who presumes to disobey the priest appointed to minister there to the Lord your God, or the judge, that person shall die” Deut. 17:12). Jesus has no authority to create his own oral Torah. Nor is one permitted, therefore, to follow Jesus’ oral Torah rather than that of the rabbis.”

            Comment;
            You point to the tip of an iceberg! Something R’B really ought to expand for us. For the sake of discussion forget Yeshua for a minute and allow me to ask you a question: When Messiah comes will his authority or his position be subject to the Shof’tim?

          • Dina says:

            Excuse me, both Jim and CP, for sticking my nose in. CP, Jesus was NEVER the king of the Jews. He was never anointed king and he never ruled over Israel as king. You conflated what Jim said–prophet with king. Jim said that the courts decide the prophet status of an individual making such a claim for himself. That is Biblical. It is up to the courts to decide. Since the court decided that he is a false prophet, then you have no business following him.

          • Dina says:

            Furthermore, if you’re so concerned about adding on to Torah and prohibiting tying a knot on Shabbos, why are you not concerned with adding on to Torah that you need a man to get to God? How about being concerned about adding on to Torah that you must believe in the messiah? How about adding on to Torah that whoever doesn’t “submit” to the messiah will be “destroyed”?

            Tell me, CP, where are any of those ideas taught in the Torah?

            I wrote a couple of devastating comments on this topic, if I may say so myself.

            Here they are:

            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-32075

            And also here, a different topic but equally devastating:

            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/christian-anti-semitism-is-it-still-relevant-by-jim/#comment-32076

          • CP says:

            Matthew Perri,
            Thought you’d might find this interesting:
            By Dr. Mark Leuchter

            “Indeed, many scholars have seen the book of Deuteronomy itself as a product of Levite-scribal transmission and composition in the 7th century BCE, as this group is repeatedly identified as entrusted with the law in various forms (Deut 10:8-9; 27:9, 14; 31:9-13, 25-26).[7] Moreover, Deuteronomy refers to all priests, regardless of rank, as Levites, and the parasha itself contains the important notice that all Levites, not simply those who descend from Aaron, are empowered to serve at the central sanctuary (Deut 18:6-8).[8]

            Furthermore, the fact that Deuteronomy is presented as the authoritative teaching of Moses is suggestive of its Levitical character, since Moses had long held the position of “patron saint” of the Levites.[9] And yet, while Deuteronomy contains the torah-teaching of Moses, it does not identify itself as a book that Moses wrote – rather, it is a scribal report of how Moses transmitted his teachings, and thus suggests that it is his ideological heirs the Levites who stand behind its actual textualization.[10]

          • CP
            Thank you, this is interesting.
            There is a gem here, another piece of evidence that Moses was systematically stripping Aaron’s family of their God-given role, undermining their authority, and saying they are all just “Levites.”……

            Other parts just seem like propaganda from Moses’ clique, elevating Moses and his importance at the expense of everyone else.
            Remember, it was AARON’s Rod that budded, not Moses’……

            And this is pure foolishness, to claim QUOTE:
            ……”while Deuteronomy contains the torah-teaching of Moses, it does not identify itself as a book that Moses wrote ”
            They forgot to read Deuteronomy 31:9 and 31:24-26

          • CP says:

            Matthew Perri,
            I agree with you it is foolishness to say nowhere in Deuteronomy does it say Moses is the author. However even though some hold to bizarre ideas about this, I think it is fairly certain he didn’t write it all. Even the Talmud tackles this issue suggesting Joshua put on the finishing touches. This opens the door to theories of exactly how much did Moses write and who may of edited it. This is where some people go over board to the point of denying Mosaic authorship. In my uneducated opinion I’d say the farthest one could go is to say Moses wrote a source document which was later lightly redacted to the current form.
            I missed where (if) Dina denied Mosaic authorship. This would really surprise me as I don’t think that is the Orthodox position.

            It would sure be nice to have the original Ark of the Covenant, its contents and the Book which was outside! It would be written in a different script without vowels. Wouldn’t that be something!

          • Dina says:

            For the record, I did NOT deny that Moses wrote Deuteronomy. I disputed the POV from which it was written. Any literature teacher will tell you that it’s written from the third-person and not the first-person POV as Matthew maintains. But I think that’s a silly and unimportant discussion and wish to spend my time elsewhere.

          • CP and Dina,
            Yes of course Joshua or someone else put the “finishing touches” on Deuteronomy, and may have edited it – it’s silly to think Moses recorded his own death and burial ( or his own birth in the beginning of Exodus either 🙂 This is just common sense.
            However,

            Anyone who actually looks at the text of Deuteronomy is faced with the fact that from Chapter 1 to Chapter 32 and many times in between, Moses sings about himself like a Mexican Mariachi, “I, I, I, I.” In chapter 33 Moses blesses the people. In chapter 34 Moses death is recorded. The End.

            This is the voice of Moses talking and writing, in the first person. I, I, I, I. He’s the star of the show – look at the last sentence. Moses gets all the credit and all the glory and all the power, Aaron and his family get nothing. (except blame for the Golden Calf.) Compare that with Numbers 33:1-2

            Aaron’s name appears over 350 times in Tanach – but only 4 times in Deuteronomy.
            Moses undermined the Aaronic Priesthood, with it’s unique authority, rights, and role, went around them, demoted them, and made all the Levites “equal” in their authority, contrary to God’s extensive instructions in the previous books of Torah. Yet, even though Moses may have been just playing politics with an agenda to give power to the military, I see that God planned even this for good…….

          • Matthew Perri Facts don’t mean anything to you – I challenge you to show me where the priests are given the authority of arbitration in any of the books of Moses besides Deuteronomy

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            I also challenge you to present the number of times Moses uses the personal pronoun and the contexts within which they appear (because the contexts are crucial).

          • Pharisee Friend and Dina,
            The term “High Priest” appears in Leviticus, Numbers, – and also in passing in Joshua 20.
            But,
            nowhere at all in Deuteronomy.
            I’ve presented the big picture, with hard numbers about facts in the text of Torah, but you are keeping your fingers in your ears and pointing to a few marginal footnotes that are barely relevant. 350+ vs 4. Zero mentions of Bezalel or the “high priest.” It’s the voice of Moses starting in chapter 1 verse 6 and for the next 30 chapters, with a few verses here and there commenting something like “And Moses told the people….” before Moses continues talking.
            Where is Moses NOT speaking in this section, Dina?

          • Matthew Perri When Deuteronomy uses the word “The Priest” (in Hebrew its one word) it is obviously referring to the high priest – it is you who has his fingers in his ears – you are building a castle on the ridiculous premise that Moses didn’t expect the readers of Deuteronomy to know about the first four books – you are ignoring the fact that Deuteronomy gives MORE authority to the priests than the other 4 books – and your definition of the most humble person is that he is one of the pettiest people to be considered a spiritual leader of the Jews – Matthew – no rabbi would get to first base with a wide Jewish following today if he was as petty as you describe Moses

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            I didn’t say Moses doesn’t speak. I said the book is narrated in the first-person POV. You are having trouble seeing the difference.

          • CP says:

            Matthew Perri,
            The top three most quoted Books by Yeshua were;
            #1) Psalms — Quoted 11 times
            #2) Deuteronomy — Quoted 10 times
            #3) Isaiah — Quoted 8 times.

            This makes Deuteronomy the MOST quoted Torah book of all five. (Exodus comes in second with 7 Quotes). Also it must be noted; when Yeshua was dealing with the Devil he quoted exclusively from Deuteronomy.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            I think you misunderstand me. I said nothing about the judges writing a new Torah. The oral Torah is not their invention. It is a necessary component to the Torah given by God to Moses and taught to the people.

            It is obvious that the term ‘melacha’ cannot be interpreted individually. The forbidden actions must have been clearly defined for them to have any meaning to the community. And it had to be in place for the judges to rule on cases where people performed melacha. A court relies on clear definitions, not on their intuitions.

            The case of the stick-gatherer is a clear proof of this. You have said that this was obviously work. But your intuition may be different than his. Theoretically, he could have turned to the court and said that it did not feel like work to him. He found nothing laborious about gathering the sticks. In fact, he might say that he felt close to God that time, away from his tent performing a task that required little attention so that he could contemplate the goodness of God and his laws. Far from being work, in his opinion, it is relaxing and brings him closer to God. Should he be judged by his intuition or yours?

            No system of laws can function this way, each man defining for himself the limits of prohibitions and duties, each man declaring his own innocence.

            Even though the written Torah does not define gathering sticks as melacha, it is clear that it was known to be a forbidden melacha. The community stopped him. It appears that they were only unsure how the man should be put to death. The text does not suggest at all, however, that the people were in doubt whether he had violated the Torah. Indeed, if he had not known the detail of how to keep the law, he would not have been put to death, as is indicated by the verses directly preceding the stick-gatherer. Numbers 15:27-31 contrasts the one who sins unintentionally and the one who violates the law presumptuously. The former brings an offering. If the stick-gatherer had not known the limits of melacha, he would not have been put to death. He would have been required to bring an offering.

            Largely, you are arguing against a case I did not make. You treat the oral Torah as if an invention by the rabbis. But this is not the case. It was given by God. It must have been in place in order for the courts to rule on crimes. The judges do rule according to existing Torah, written and oral.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            You write;
            “I think you misunderstand me. I said nothing about the judges writing a new Torah. The oral Torah is not their invention. It is a necessary component to the Torah given by God to Moses and taught to the people.”

            Comment;
            I dont think I’m misunderstanding you at all. To prove it please answer the following: Torah commands the king to write a copy of the Torah given to him by the Priest. This shows Torah instructs specifically what should be written by who. Therefore where does Torah command the Shof’tim to write a Mishnah?

            You write;
            “It is obvious that the term ‘melacha’ cannot be interpreted individually. The forbidden actions MUST HAVE BEEN clearly defined for them to have any meaning to the community. And it had to be in place for the judges to rule on cases where people performed melacha. A court relies on clear definitions, not on their intuitions.”

            Comment;
            I capitalized your “assumption”. I have and will again prove to you this is an incorrect speculation on your part.

            You write;
            “The case of the stick-gatherer is a clear proof of this. You have said that this was obviously work. But your intuition may be different than his. Theoretically, he could have turned to the court and said that it did not feel like work to him. He found nothing laborious about gathering the sticks. In fact, he might say that he felt close to God that time, away from his tent performing a task that required little attention so that he could contemplate the goodness of God and his laws. Far from being work, in his opinion, it is relaxing and brings him closer to God. Should he be judged by his intuition or yours?”

            Comment;
            I’ve posted this once already unequivocably proving my point from Torah. Numbers 15:35 says plainly ADONAI judged the man gathering sticks. If you’d bother to read this account you’d see neither the Judges or Moses knew what to do with the wood gatherer and the matter was taken before ADONAI rather than consulting an oral proto Mishnah.

            You write;
            No system of laws can function this way, each man defining for himself the limits of prohibitions and duties, each man declaring his own innocence.

            Comment;
            Haven’t you ever heard? You cannot legislate morality. The Torah is intentionally ambiguous in some areas so that it takes a heart after God to fulfill it.

            You write;
            “Even though the written Torah does not define gathering sticks as melacha, it is clear that it was known to be a forbidden melacha. The community stopped him. It appears that they were only unsure how the man should be put to death. The text does not suggest at all, however, that the people were in doubt whether he had violated the Torah. Indeed, if he had not known the detail of how to keep the law, he would not have been put to death, as is indicated by the verses directly preceding the stick-gatherer. Numbers 15:27-31 contrasts the one who sins unintentionally and the one who violates the law presumptuously. The former brings an offering. If the stick-gatherer had not known the limits of melacha, he would not have been put to death. He would have been required to bring an offering.”

            Comment;
            You assume the Torah doesn’t allow for the common sense God gave man. The Torah specifically says it is Not to be added to. Yet this is precisely what you advocate by taking the position Torah is incomplete because it doesn’t define Melacha, therefore we must take it upon ourselves to complete it by ADDING specific authoritative definitions applicable to every generation until the world to come.

            You write;
            “Largely, you are arguing against a case I did not make. You treat the oral Torah as if an invention by the rabbis. But this is not the case. It was given by God.

            Comment;
            I ask again; Where is it recorded in Torah “it was given by God”? Where in Torah is it commanded to write a Mishnah equal in authority to Torah?

            You write;
            ” IT MUST HAVE BEEN in place in order for the courts to rule on crimes. The judges do rule according to existing Torah, written and oral.”

            Comment;
            Once again I capitalize your words showing you your assumption. Further more the man gathering wood SHOULD set a precedent since Torah is giving a example of how to rule on crimes; in this case it was taken individually and it was ADONAI who ruled, not the “courts”.

          • Dina says:

            CP, it is breathtaking to see how you misrepresent Jim, continually. I will let him deal with it. I will ask you one question, however–a question I posed many times but which you continue to not answer.

            If you are so zealous about not adding to Torah, why accept the added teaching that you need a man to get to God? Why accept the added teaching that you must believe in the messiah (even without proof)? Why accept the added teaching that whoever doesn’t accept the messiah will be destroyed (“submit or be destroyed” were your words)?

            And now, you write: “The Torah is intentionally ambiguous in some areas so that it takes a heart after God to fulfill it.” Where is this idea taught in the Torah? You made that up out of thin air.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Before the people ask HaShem what to do with the stick-gatherer, it is obvious that they:

            1. Knew that he broke the law, because they locked him up.
            2. Because he was given the death sentence, he also knew that he broke the law. If he had not, then he would be subject to brink a female goat as a sin offering (Numbers 15:27).

            Therefore, it was known that gathering sticks was prohibited, though it is never stated that it is a prohibited form of work.

            When you write that HaShem judged the man, that is not quite right. The people asked what to do with the man. They did not ask if he was guilty of breaking the Sabbath. They already knew he was guilty. They did not ask if he broke the Sabbath. They were asking about the penalty.

            It is a good question why they did not know what to do with him. But it is obvious that melacha had been defined by them. They understood and the man understood that he had violated the prohibition to perform any melacha, even though it had not been so defined in the written part of the Torah.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Dina, says;
            “CP, it is breathtaking to see how you misrepresent Jim, continually. ….”
            Comment;
            Thanks for the compliment….I think? I do not wish to misrepresent Jim, that would be counterproductive to my intentions. I’d rather represent him correctly and discuss honestly. If you can post some examples where I Misrepresent Jim, I will receive them with grace. Thank you.

            You write;
            If you are so zealous about not adding to Torah, why accept the added teaching that you need a man to get to God? Why accept the added teaching that you must believe in the messiah (even without proof)?
            Comment;
            I think you misunderstand; Yeshua taught nothing new as in different from Torah, sure he taught a new perspective, but that is not adding to Torah. First off, what makes this man different? His teaching and actions. He taught a repentance from the heart which would result in repentance in actions. You don’t disagree there do you? What you do disagree with is atonement provided by a completed Tzaddik who was rejected by people you claim to affirm. But on closer observation this is not quite true, because the group to which you belong were also at odds with the Sadduces whom you do not affirm. Furthermore the idea of the atonement of a completed Tzaddik comes not from Christianity but from Judaism. We both agree Messiah is coming, but it is not going to be the hap happy day some think. Where we disagree is I believe Messiah came and was rejected which resulted to an outreach to the scattered lost tribes, you don’t believe this. So what? Perhaps it doesn’t even concern you except God may not be to happy with those standing in the door trying to turn the lost tribes back.

            You write;
            Why accept the added teaching that whoever doesn’t accept the messiah will be destroyed (“submit or be destroyed” were your words)?
            Comment;
            Sorry, these are not my words but the words of our Prophets. Would you like me to post them for you? Or can you find them for yourself?
            Btw, you may be confused as to my meaning; these words apply to when Messiah comes in a way so that you will recognize him. (although some think with good reason it is also applicable to Messiah’s first coming)

            You write;
            And now, you write: “The Torah is intentionally ambiguous in some areas so that it takes a heart after God to fulfill it.” Where is this idea taught in the Torah? You made that up out of thin air.
            Comment;
            Not thin air.

            Isa 28:12-14
            He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
            And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.
            So the word of the LORD to them will be,
            “Order on order, order on order,
            Line on line, line on line,
            A little here, a little there,”
            That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.
            Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers,
            Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,

          • CP Where does it say that whoever does not submit to the Messiah will be destroyed? It says whoever doesn’t submit to Israel will be destroyed (Isaiah 60:12)

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            CP, you didn’t answer the question. Jesus did indeed teach new theologies not taught in the Torah:

            1. You can only get to God through him.
            2. You must believe in the messiah.
            3. If you don’t believe in the messiah you will be destroyed.

            This is not a different perspective but radically different teachings.

            Therefore, I challenge you to find me ONE place in the Torah that clearly teaches that

            1. You need a man to get to God.
            2. You must believe in the messiah.
            3. If you don’t believe in the messiah you will be destroyed.

            By your standard, since one must reject anything not clearly spelled out in the Torah, then if you cannot find clear support for any of these new theologies you must reject them.

            By the way, your Isaiah reference has nothing to do with the idea you came up with that the Torah is intentionally ambiguous for God-filled hearts to follow. There is zero connection.

            Did you forget about the remaining two prophecies? I will understand if discussing this is difficult for you and makes you uncomfortable.

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            You write;
            Before the people ask HaShem what to do with the stick-gatherer, it is obvious that they:
            1. Knew that he broke the law, because they locked him up.
            Comment;
            I agree! Which proves my point. The people didn’t consult the Judges for a definition of Melacha. It was common knowledge.

            Hey, Jim, how’s this; I build a automatic stick gatherer, start it up before sundown on Friday night and let it do its thing all day Sabbath. What do you think? Is this considered work? What it it does have a muffler and is loud and annoying to everyone keeping the Sabbath?

            Jim, pretty sure Mishnah doesn’t cover automatic wood gathering devices (I could be wrong) but I don’t need to look it up, because no matter what it says I know to do this is wrong.

          • CP there are ways of violating the spirit of the Sabbath without violating its letter (Its possible to do this with almost any law) – but if you never encountered the Sabbath what do you know about its spirit?

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            I invite you to review your own arguments, so that you can see that they have led you to two bad conclusions:

            1. You have accidentally made yourself the sole arbiter of Torah, creating for yourself your own oral Torah. You are in quite the contradiction. On the one hand you say that only what is directly written is legitimate. On the other, you apply your own standard of what you consider to be common sense.

            And if your common sense differs from that of another Jew?

            You have created your own oral Torah. The written Torah is to be understood and applied according to your personal standards, according to your intuition.

            2. You have accidentally nullified the purpose of judges. In your reading of Numbers 15, you find no role of the judge. From this, you have come to the conclusion that the judges do not have the authority to render judgments. This conclusion is in contradiction to Deuteronomy 17, which clearly gives them that authority. It is clear that your logic has taken you to an untenable conclusion.

            Your logic does not hold. It leads to two impossible conclusions. Something has gone wrong somewhere. I doubt highly that you believe your own intuition or common sense to be supreme. And I doubt that you mean to deny the judges their Torah-appointed role. Since your arguments have led to these conclusions, something has gone wrong somewhere.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            !!!! You did not answer my question about an automatic stick gathering machine started up on Friday and left to run all Sabbath?

            Could it be your answer might disagree with the Mishnah?

            You say I’ve accidentally made myself the arbitrator of the Torah. If you’d be honest with yourself, you’d realize we are all arbitrators of Torah, just some more than others; it all depends where you draw the line or “build a fence”.

            No I haven’t stripped the Judges of ANY resposablities. I affirm every responsibility specifically defined for Judges in the written Torah. But I asked you repeatedly; Where in the written Torah does it specifically tell the Judges to write a Mishnah to be authoritative for every generation forward until the world to come?

            Rather I contend Judges should operate as exemplified in the case of the man gathering wood on Sabbath. It was judged by written Torah on an individual basis. I seriously doubt the entire Orthodox community will implode if half think its ok to tie a knot to keep their pants up and half think its a violation. However it is quite obvious we’d have a problem if half thought it ok to knit blankets or tie up grapes. You just gotta ask yourself; If God wanted the 39 Melachot why didn’t he have Moses write them? It would of been very easy.

            If you want to build a fence around the Torah, that’s fine, I don’t judge right or wrong. But for you to build a fence around Torah and then tell everyone these are the new boundaries, — this is adding to Torah! I just don’t understand how anyone can’t see that!

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            I am constantly amazed at the ‘gotcha!’ expressed by one of you Christians or lovers of Jesus when someone does not answer one of your questions. I neglected it, because I thought it more important to address the general problems with your philosophy. But if you need an answer: I have no idea. I am not a halachic scholar, particularly with regard to Shabbat. After all, I am not Jewish.

            You say that the man gathering wood was judge by the written Torah. This is clearly not true. The written Torah does not define melacha as limiting the gathering of wood. Still, a man was put to death for violating that which was not stated in the written Torah. Your appeal to common sense shows that it was not written that one may not gather sticks on the Sabbath. If you had a verse, you would not rely upon your intuition.

            You seem confused what the Mishnah is. It is not merely a fence around the Torah. Though there are rabbinic fences, they are differentiated from those commands given by HaShem. And there is no command to write it down, because it was meant to never be written down. It was written only when the dispersal of the Jewish people made it necessary.

            Your own comments show the need for an oral Torah. You continue to define melacha according to your own intuition. You call it common sense. But this shows that the details are not written down. They are passed on orally. They are a way of life. It is clear that your intuition is not common sense, because it is not held commonly. Accidentally, you have made yourself the sole authority on Torah, submitting the law to your intuition, your private sense.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Wow, that reply button is getting a long way up there!

            Jim,
            You bring up a very important point;
            The Oral Torah was never intended to be written down. Why do you think this was? I think it is because as soon as it is written down it is fixed for all time making it equal with written Torah and also it becomes inflexible to change with times, cultures and circumstances. Written Torah is meant never to change, Oral Torah was meant to be flexible.

  13. CP says:

    Concerned Reader writes;
    “Mathew Perri, the difference is that Moses did not teach Jews anything their fathers didnt already know.”

    Really ?…….

    “…. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.”

    • Concerned Reader says:

      CP, El Shaddai means: G-d the mighty. Hashem is the personal name of G-d.

      Being that Abraham was from Ur, he likely already had some understanding of the “true and highest G-d,” as even many polytheistic pantheons have a chief deity who is in charge of the others. Why do you think it is that so many Israelite’s struggled with Baal and Asherah worship for so long? Baal and Asherah were the son and consort of the chief Canaanite god El.

      In Hinduism for example, the closest analogue to the one G-d concept is Brahman. So, if by chance G-d says “I did not make my personal name known to them,” and Moses asks, “how then shall they know that it is you who sent me?” When G-d gives him the name Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh this is to say “the deity THEY know who is above all natural phenomenon has sent me to you

  14. Jim says:

    CP,

    In response to your second paragraph here:

    https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%EF%BB%BFclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-32006

    Once again, you misrepresent an argument. I did not discuss the failings of Christians but the failings of the so-called spirit of truth that you claim leads them.

    It is very good of a family to give up the evils in their lives. And no, I would not merely label them “idolaters”. That story is very nice for making me seem like an insensitive clod. However, they are not the point of discussion. The question is not the imperfection of the human beings, but whether or not they are infused with a spirit of truth.

    As Dina has pointed out, many people have made those same changes in their lives without coming to Jesus. Mormons have done it, but I doubt that makes Joseph Smith a true prophet in your eyes. Muslims have done it, but I doubt that makes Muhammad a true prophet in your eyes. Buddhist have done it… and so on.

    And anyone that has improved their lives in such ways deserves praise.

    But this is no proof that they have received a spirit of truth. This spirit of truth does not lead them to God. It leads them to an idol. Again, this is a violation of one of the fundaments of Torah. It is one of the foundation stones. The books they study even state outright that God is one and alone, and somehow, the spirit of truth cannot open their eyes to this foundational teaching.

    That many Christians and lovers of Jesus have made great improvements in the moral quality of their lives is laudable. But this is no proof of the spirit of truth. People from all religions have made the same changes. Where then is your proof that Jesus fulfilled his promise in sending a spirit of truth?

    Indeed, you have appealed to the Pentecostal event, but this is clearly no fulfillment of the prophecy. You consider the prophecy regarding the temple with great exactitude, but you do not apply the same standard to the prophecies regarding the spirit. Jesus’ description of the spirit had nothing to do with speaking foreign languages. Acts 2 does not fulfill the prophecy. And it certainly does not have anything to do with Joel. This spirit of yours is nowhere to be found.

    The point, CP, is not to indict those in error. The point is that, if they are guided by the spirit of truth, they ought not be in error. This is particularly true when they study a book that tells them not to worship a man.

    And the point is that those that believed in Jesus (and were supposedly moved by the spirit of truth) misrepresented the words of the holy God with no compunction. One would like to think that Matthew trembled a bit before altering the words of Isaiah. But it did not stop him.

    Or perhaps a redactor altered Isaiah, a redactor that was not empowered by the holy spirit. But then what? Did none of those billions you claim—or very few anyway—imbued with the spirit of truth not notice? Guided by the spirit of truth, billions have accepted not only a false god but also the alteration of God’s holy words through his prophets?

    I still look for proof that your spirit of truth is active in the world today. I see that it has no more power than Joseph Smith. I see that it cannot teach people the basic truth that God is not a man. I see that it cannot teach people even to respect the words of the holy prophets, enough even to keep them from rewriting the text. When I look, I see no evidence of the spirit of truth you claim was sent.

    Jim

  15. CP says:

    Jim,
    As I’ve said before, you equate perfection with the Spirit of Truth but fail to factor in the imperfections of man. The Tanach addresses this in saying God knows we are but dust. But you rather than embracing the compassion of God to those less perfect than you, condemn them as idol worshipers. Not withstanding those truly idol worshipers, most of those you condemn see Yeshua as the Memra of God, therefore it is perhaps you who are the one in misunderstanding and why they call you blind. Because you fail to see what is so obvious to them, yet they don’t take credit for their sight and give the glory to God, but you continue to condemn them by building a straw man argument of idol worship against them.

    • LarryB says:

      CP
      Your here to learn. Right? Why aren’t these your questions instead of teachings/corrections?
      1. you equate perfection with the Spirit of Truth but fail to factor in the imperfections of man.
      2. The Tanach addresses this in saying God knows we are but dust. But you rather than embracing the compassion of God to those less perfect than you, condemn them as idol worshipers. Not withstanding those truly idol worshipers, most of those you condemn see Yeshua as the Memra of God, therefore it is perhaps you who are the one in misunderstanding and why they call you blind. Because you fail to see what is so obvious to them, yet they don’t take credit for their sight and give the glory to God, but you continue to condemn them by building a straw man argument of idol worship against them.
      You are correcting. Not seeking truth.
      I personally find it hard to take you seriously because of your approach. When I first came here as a Christian Seeking truth, I never corrected anyone. I asked questions I did not give answers or correct anyone. You will likely disagree with me but you might consider what I have said. Imagine telling your first year algebra 1 teacher he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Based on your basic math skills his new/personal rules make no sense.

      • CP says:

        LarryB,
        Amongst other things I’ve been in life, I am currently a College professor, therefore I’ve no need to imagine when a student challenges me. Personally in my opinion those are the best students because they are ‘thinking’ students! They excite me because they are seeking truth. Which brings us to ‘Jewishness’. It is the Jewish way to question, even superiors. The western mindset views this as disrespect and must be taught it is not disrespect but rather a sincere desire to understand.

        • Concerned Reader says:

          CP, what are you a professor of if I may ask?

        • Dina says:

          It is the Jewish way to question, but Larry’s point is you are correcting, not questioning. You are teaching/preaching, not seeking. You missed his point.

          I don’t think anyone here thinks anymore that you are here to learn. I believed you at first, but your tone of dismissal and mockery and your personal attacks on the character of your opponents reveal not a spirit of truth seeking but…something else.

      • LarryB says:

        CP
        My point is you don’t question, you correct. I have many questions also, I never presume I have the answer. BTW, your being a college professor means nothing to me. Your a person no different than me. I do agree with questioning a lot, my experience with Christians not just westerners, is they hate it and want to dictate what you think. On the other hand the rabbis I have dealt with always say their theory is, or consider this. You are clearly a Christian. You correct, not question.

        • CP says:

          LarryB, & Concerned Reader,
          Perhaps I can get both questions with one stone:
          LarryB I didn’t mean anything in mentioning being a collage professor, only that I have experience with students and know what it means when they challenge the status quo even though they are wrong; it means they are thinking!!! They are searching out truth, wanting to know, ENGAGED!!! So when you accuse me of not wanting to learn because I challenge the status quo, I’m just pointing out the opposite is true. Sure I have students who just learn and regurgitate on the tests, but those although successfully never think out side the box and will never be on the cutting edge because they lack understanding to move beyond and utilize what has only been memorized.
          Which brings me to Concerned Reader; I’m not a real professor with a Phd. I’ve just 4 years of full time college, four years part time and years of experience in the private sector. I just recently took a full time position at the local Jr College teaching Electrical Classes. Nothing special.

    • Jim says:

      CP,

      As you continue to misconstrue my words, I hardly know what to say. I was not discussing whether or not Christians are good people. That is not the question. The question is whether or not any evidence exists that they are imbued with a spirit of truth. When one asserts that there is an invisible force or being, the proof of it must be found in its effects. But we see that there are no such verifiable effects, and that your claim is baseless.

      You argue that Christians improve their lives, leaving behind addiction and abuse. This is true, but it is not evidence of a spirit of truth. The same effects are exhibited in people from all different religions and even people without religion. If the same effect can be produced without the power of a spirit of truth, then the effect cannot be cited as evidence.

      Of course, not every Christian comes out of a life of addiction and abuse. Let us take the case of Harold, a basically good man. He does not steal. He is not adulterous or violent. He has no addictions. Obviously, Harold, being but ‘dust and ashes’ is not perfect; he has sinned. But he makes amends when he wrongs people. Assume that he is basically morally good. A missionary comes to Harold and tells Harold that he needs Jesus, and Harold becomes a Christian, newly imbued with the holy spirit. The overall moral quality of his life will not change, because he was already a good man, but under the spirit of truth, he now worships a man as a god. The spirit of truth has introduced into Harold’s life an error. Moreover, that error is a question of truth and falsity. One would think that a spirit of truth would lead him to worship God alone, but the effect is that Harold worships a man.

      I wonder what the difference between the spirit of truth and a spirit of error would be.

      The effects of this spirit of truth are dubious. You claim that it does not make people perfect. But the spirit of truth has no observable benefits whatsoever. One might argue that the spirit of truth is not concerned with niggling details like the burial place of the patriarchs. But it does not even enable one to differentiate between a false god and the actual God.

      Again, this is not about the people. It is about the spirit. The spirit has no observable beneficial effect. The majority of people endowed with this spirit do not know the difference between whom they are to worship and whom they are not to worship. This is startling when one considers that they study a book that tells them outright not to worship any created thing.

      It is their treatment of holy books that is perhaps most shocking. Supposedly imbued with a spirit of truth, they have no concern for the abuses of scripture found in their Bibles. Many of them do not even notice the alterations and misrepresentations of Tanach in their NT, which seems to indicate that the spirit of truth gives them no greater discernment. And when the abuses are shown to them, many of these people defend the corruption of God’s holy words. Where is the evidence of this spirit of truth?

      Many of them show little regard for the truth. They do not just trust to the distortions of the NT, they invent their own. Many modern Christians, apparently under a spirit of truth, distort the words of the rabbis. You have recently provided us with an example. They play fast and loose with rabbinic commentaries and other works in an effort to support their own theologies. And when they are caught distorting the sources, generally speaking, they entrench themselves. Again, I see no evidence of a spirit of truth.

      When I look at the evidence, I see flawed people making errors, yes. And many of them, for all their faults, are very fine people. I do not see fit to judge them. For all I know, they have achieved all they could. I only seek to examine the claim that they have been given a spirit of truth. It is that of which I see no evidence. On the contrary, they do not make small and insignificant errors. Even with the help of a spirit of truth, they cannot get a fundamental teaching of Torah out of the book. They show little discernment in recognizing distortions of Tanach and little care when it is shown to them. Nor do they concern themselves with the truth enough to treat respectfully the words of their opposition. The only conclusion that can be reached is that these people were not given a spirit of truth.

      Jim

      • Jim says:

        CP,

        A small note regarding your spirit of truth:

        As I understand it, you exclude from true believers in Jesus those that killed the Jews, drove them from their lands, and burned their synagogues and homes. But, by the standard you have presented us, I do not see how you can. Let me explain.

        We will posit a man, Cedric. He is a devout believer in Jesus, and he hates those that killed him in his innocence and rejected the best of men. He takes seriously the charges of the NT that the Jews are children of the devil, etc. And, with his friends and the sanction of his government, he participates in a pogrom, killing Jews, etc. I ask the question: how can we know if he has the spirit of truth residing upon him?

        The answer might seem to be obvious. He must not have a spirit of truth residing upon him, or else he would not have performed these atrocities. But then, you have given us an answer that allows him to commit these crimes: he is “but dust and ashes.” Cedric is still only human after all. The spirit of truth does not make people perfect. The murders, assaults, and the like that Cedric commits are done of his imperfect human self, not the spirit of truth.

        This is further complicated by the fact that one might point at the changes in his life since he came to believe in Jesus. He no longer goes to the house of ill repute. He no longer abuses alcohol or his children. He performs acts of charity, when before he was stingy and careless of others. These all indicate that the spirit of truth has indeed improved him.

        Likely, you find this scenario ridiculous. You will say that the man is obviously transgressing the teaching of Jesus in murdering, etc. But then, according to you, someone who worships Jesus is also violating Jesus’ teaching. In what way can you distinguish between the imperfection of the one and the other?

        Both violate the teachings of Jesus, according to you. And both violate the Torah, clearly. If the one has the spirit of truth, it will be impossible to prove that the other does not. No substantiation has been given that believers in Jesus have received a spirit of truth.

        Jim

        • Jim says:

          CP,

          A follow up question:

          If the spirit of truth cannot help you identify God, then how can it help one identify the Messiah?

          Jim

  16. Concerned Reader says:

    CP, can I ask you a question? Was Jonah a false prophet? Jonah clearly prophesied doom for the peoples of Nineveh and it did not come. Why?

    • Concerned Reader says:

      CP said: “Acceptance of this one prophecy by itself doesn’t prove anything about Yeshua except he got one right, yet some are unwilling to concede such an obvious and minor point shows decisions are being made upon emotion.”

      The reason that Jesus predicting the destruction wouldn’t be grounds for a prophecy is the same reason that it wouldn’t make other people who said it prophets. Let me explain.

      If you lived in the states in September of 2001, and you saw the towers go down. Everyone knew that war was coming. The whole country knew that war would be coming. We had seen that some people even thought the white house would be attacked and destroyed. If someone had predicted “the white house and the surrounding buildings would go down,” and it happened, it wouldn’t be a prophecy.

      Why? Because doom can always be overturned. A person should never think “doom must come.” You say that Jesus predicted the destruction, and that non acknowledgment of this is based on emotion.

      I can acknowledge that he said something that others would have also seen coming too. As I’ve shown you though, even if someone fits a prophecy, even you don’t want to apply it to them.

      Jesus never ruled as a king. Yet you believe he is king of the Jews.

      You believe messiah will be both king and priest. (I showed you why the Baptist fits that picture just as well as Jesus.)

      BUT you would never apply that as a prophesy to the baptist.

      When someone prophecies that Jesus will return when X cataclysm occurs, people follow them because a sign occurred and was fulfilled. However the meat of the message did not occur.

      What Jesus predicted could be called a birthpang of the messianic age. A footstep of the messiah.

      But pangs are not childbirth.

      Jesus spoke of kingdom come, and the kingdom did not come. He may have foretold a sign, but the meat of what he always spoke of never came.

    • CP says:

      Concerned Reader,
      Jonah per definition was a real Prophet; ‘he told the truth as declared to him by God’. What Jonah said was true; ‘Nineveh was going to be destroyed’ — that is until circumstances changed.

      • did mark think jesus replaced the temple sacrifices?
        if yes, then are there clues that mark already knew?

        • CP says:

          Idk if he knew. I would think he would know from Daniel it was going to happen.
          These ‘could ‘ be hints in Mark:

          Mark 11:14
          “He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!”….”

          Mark 11:15-17
          “Then they *came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS’?……”

          Mark 14:24
          “And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

      • Concerned Reader says:

        Right. Until repentance averted his prediction, and the people had atonement.

        • CP says:

          “IF” Yeshua was chosen by God to be king, but the religious leaders refused to appoint him as such, (per Deut 17 God chooses the king, the people appoint) this would put them in rebellion against God’s choice and it will take nothing short of repentance to rectify the situation, which btw is prophesied.

  17. Concerned Reader says:

    CP said: “Perhaps there is a Pharisaical group who doesn’t need the first phase of Messiah, but that you’d deny others this opportunity to return to God is suspect unless absolute proof of the contrary can be given.”

    CP, all rabbinic Judaism really wants is to be recognized as a legitimate expression of the love of G-d. Jews want to observe halacha peacefully. Jews deny salvation and meaning to nobody. The Torah itself instructs Israel to love the stranger. Jews are not knocking on your door asking you to become Jewish. The Torah does not need you to be Jewish. The Bible is chalk full of righteous non Jews who were not members of G-d’s covenant.

    The reason this blog even exists, is because for the majority of followers of Jesus, Judaism is perceived as an incomplete perversion of the truth. Jews are labelled blind legalistic people who hide the light of truth before the Christian world even attempts to truly hear their side of the issues.

    Far from closing the truth off to others, the rabbis have always been willing to educate. It is the majority of the Church that closes its ears. Even when thinkers like Jerome had Jewish teachers who taught them Hebrew, even when they lived in the land, they could not distance themselves from typical Christian prejudices about Jews and Judaism.

    Jesus is not seen as the messiah because he hasn’t finished the Job. He has not inaugurated the redemption. Even if his life had redemptive value for some, it has also had an extremely negative impact on the very people who Jesus came to allegedly save.

    • CP says:

      Concerned Reader:
      Three points about your post:

      1) Judaism does deny salvation only through Yeshua and teaches salvation is only through obedience and repentance. The problem is neither Christian or Jew believes Yeshua taught salvation through obedience and repentance couched in love for God and fellow man, thus the confusion.

      2) Both sides hurl labels: Blind legalists vs Idol Worhippers.

      3) “Even if his life had redemptive value for some, it has also had an extremely negative impact on the very people who Jesus came to allegedly save.”

      You are mistaken because you’ve listened to ‘who’ others say Yeshua came to save rather than to ‘who’ Yeshua said he came to save. Yeshua said quite plainly; he didn’t come for the healthy, but for the sick. He said he was set only to the lost sheep of Israel. Those redeemed have profited greatly. However I will concede those healthy and those redeemed have both suffered at the hands of those who pervert the message of Yeshua into evil.

  18. Pharisee Friend, CP & Dina,

    Korah’s Rebellion, the sequel….

    We all know about “Korah’s Rebellion” in Numbers 16.
    And for us, we think it’s just another example of “the people rebelling against Moses, and then God shows up and vindicates Moses….”
    Right?
    Well, that is true – but it’s not “the whole truth”. Rather, it is a distorted picture, based on a few verses out of context. It gives all the glory to Moses, and really none to Aaron.
    If you want the “whole truth,”
    Read the entire 3 chapters, Numbers 16, 17 & 18.

    Yes, Moses plays a big, essential role – a supporting role. But AARON is the star of the show here. Although dissatisfaction with Moses’ leadership was an issue, the bigger issue was the Aaronic Priesthood. The priesthood was reserved for Aaron and his sons ALONE, setting them permanently above the rest of the Levites in status and authority.

    “Yahweh said to Aaron,……. ‘I myself have selected your fellow Levites from among the Israelites as a gift to YOU, dedicated to the LORD to do the work at the Tent of Meeting. But ONLY YOU AND YOUR SONS may serve as priests in connection with everything at the altar and inside the curtain. I am giving you the service of the priesthood as a gift. Anyone else who comes near the sanctuary must be put to death.’” [Numbers 18:1, 6-7.]

    Korah and the “other Levites” didn’t want to be relegated to simply doing the heavy lifting as the furniture movers – they wanted the priesthood too, stripping Aaron and his sons of this special right and role as the priesthood. They wanted to erase the distinction between Aaron’s family and “the Levites”, and give the “other Levites” more power, and rights to the places of prominence at the altar and sanctuary.
    Yahweh showed his wrath in a big way, and confirmed AARON and his sons against the challenge of the “other Levites.” Aaron is the main character in these 3 chapters, not Moses.

    But in Deuteronomy, after Aaron was dead, Moses capitulated to another “Korah’s rebellion” and facilitated it, arbitrarily giving the “other Levites” power and rights contrary to God’s word, partnering with his General Joshua, and essentially erasing the unique God-given role of Aaron’s sons in the priesthood in his new “second law”.

    • Dina, you said regarding the Book of Deuteronomy QUOTE:
      “I didn’t say Moses doesn’t speak. I said the book is narrated in the first-person POV. You are having trouble seeing the difference.”

      I think Moses, or whoever wrote Chapter 27:1, 4, 9-10 “are having trouble seeing the difference.” And so am I, I confess.
      Can you enlighten me?

    • CP says:

      Matthew Perri,

      This article addresses your POV quite in depth!

      http://thetorah.com/the-kohanim-the-leviim/

      Here’s a teaser:
      “Consider this example: Are Levi’im (Levites) considered Kohanim (Priests), with all the accompanying mitzvos and benefits, or not? Can Levi’im offer korbanos (offerings) on the mizbe’ach (altar)? Can they rule on tzara’as (ritual skin disease)? Can they bless the nation from the duchan (podium)? ‘Preposterous!’ you say. ‘Of course not! The Torah clearly says that Kohanim and Levi’im are two entirely different categories!’ And you are partially correct. The bulk of Vayikra and Bamidbar are quite clear about that. But Devarim is not, not at all. In fact, it implies the exact opposite.”

      • CP,
        This says, QUOTE- “nowhere does a single pasuk in all of Devarim differentiate between Kohanim and Levi’im.”

        I interpret this to mean nowhere does a single passage in all of Deuteronomy differentiate between Priests and Levites. Right?

        Wow. So I’ve stumbled onto the truth, without knowing Hebrew. My observation of fact about the texts has been validated.

        • CP says:

          Matthew Perri,
          Yes, I believe you have, even without Hebrew, lol!
          It been very enlightening for me to research the things you bring up.
          It would seem there might be a ‘Paul’ in the OT???

        • Matthew perri Even in the English Deuteronomy 18:3 would show that you are wrong 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Pharisee Friend,
            The whole passage Deuteronomy 18:1-8 erases the distinction between priests and Levites.
            “The priest, who are Levites – indeed the whole tribe of Levi – are to have no allotment or inheritance with Israel….” 18:1

            The rest of the passage continues blending and swapping back and forth, to make the terms “priests” and “Levites” synonymous, and “equal” in benefits, with the right go “serve there in the presence of the LORD.” It takes away the special rights of Aaron’s sons to the priesthood, and this would certainly please the “other Levites.”

          • Matthew Perri It seems that you won’t allow the facts to disturb your theory – Deuteronomy 18:3-5 clearly applies only to the priests, as does 17:12; 19:17; 20:2; 26:3

            Another amazing thing about your theory is that as far as I can tell, no community in recorded history ever read Deuteronomy without the 4 books – in other words no community who ever accepted Deuteronomy looked down at Aaron or denigrated the priesthood – yet you are “zealous” for the honor of Aaron But at the same time you have a Jesus who wrote God out of the world of his followers and assigned Him a back seat, wrote God’s Law out of the hearts of his followers and He wrote God’s firstborn son (Israel) out of the minds of his followers – and basically most people in history read Jesus that way – and you have no problem with that? One thing is clear to all – the truth is not your objective

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • This says, QUOTE:
        ….”analysis by academic critical[1] scholars has revealed something shocking: The Torah more resembles a patchwork quilt. It can be divided into sections which are internally consistent yet contradict each other, in both history and halacha. This seems to indicate that instead of coming from one Author, they actually come from various different sources, each one possessing its own unique vocabulary and world view.”

        So
        .1) Genesis was written by a succession of the Patriarchs, from Adam to Joseph,
        .2) Moses collaborated with Aaron, Miriam and maybe others to compose Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and finally
        .3) Moses wrote Deuteronomy, pretty much on his own, after Aaron (and Miriam) died.
        It makes perfect sense.

    • Matthew Perri I tolerate alot of nonsense on this blog – but there is a limit – you are harping on the same ridiculous theory for a long time now – all the evidence is against you – you still have not provided a reasonable scenario that would have us believe that Moses expected Deuteronomy to be read without the first four books – you still didn’t explain how the book which gives more authority to the priests than the other four is usurping their authority – it is obvious to all that you are making this up as you go along (as your shift on the Levites amply demonstrates) You raise another issue with this post – if your theory is true then why didn’t Moses get swallowed by the ground? Why did Moses give credibility to Joshua by splitting the Jordan and stopping the sun? The comment policy is that the comments be directly related to the article under which they appear – I don’t usually enforce it but now I ask of you – either answer my two questions or keep your peace

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Pharisee Friend, you asked QUOTE:
        “why didn’t Moses get swallowed by the ground? Why did Moses give credibility to Joshua by splitting the Jordan and stopping the sun? ”

        .1) Because Moses was not challenging Aaron’s authority over the priesthood, but rather Moses was defending Aaron from attacks by the “other Levites” who were not Aaron’s family. (Moses was also partially under attack himself by these other Levites, and some other leader to….)

        .2) God gave credibility to lots of Jewish leaders, including Joshua, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. That doesn’t mean everything they said and did was right. Yes, God gave credibility to Solomon – that doesn’t mean it’s OK to worship idols and have 1000 wives. Solomon did such things, and there were serious consequences for the whole nation, for a long time, after he died. Maybe not during his lifetime that we can see….. Maybe it was the same with Joshua.

        I am LEARNING as I go along- and when I uncover facts I had not noticed previously, I may need to “shift” and change my mind somewhat, and continue pursuing truth. I’m not here to dig in my heel and “prove I was right” when in fact in some cases I was wrong.

        The big picture I see in Deuteronomy is that Moses gave the “other Levites” more power, rights, and authority, at the expense of Aaron’s sons, who were the God-appointed “priesthood.” Do you see this?

        • Matthew Perri If you are still learning then don’t formulate theories – gather the facts first – here are is a question for you – in which of the five books are the priests assigned the greatest authority?

          And my question about Moses getting swallowed up is after he wrote Deuteronomy which you read as a repudiation of Aaron’s authority – why the favortism? why does Korach get swallowed while Moses and Joshua get confirmed?

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • Pharisee Friend, you said, “you still have not provided a reasonable scenario that would have us believe that Moses expected Deuteronomy to be read without the first four books ”

        The word of Moses repeatedly throughout Deuteronomy point to this. Here are just a few examples…..

        4:1, “Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you.”

        28:13, 28:14, 28:15
        “the commands of Yahweh your God that I give you this day”
        “I give you today”
        “I am giving you today”

        • Matthew Perri Another ridiculous argument – Deuteronomy 4:5 refers back to commandments that we were already given as he does throughout Deuteronomy “this day” is not literal simply because Deuteronomy itself was not said in one day Furthermore – Deuteronomy is called the “repeat” of the Torah (17:18) obviously the readers of Deuteronomy are supposed to realize that this is just a review, a synopsis of what goes before not an override

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Jim says:

            Matthew Perri,

            How long will you press upon us this peculiar reading of yours, repeating endlessly your own personal reading and ignoring the points the good rabbi has brought up? Must we endure you posting the same confused comments over and over? You take us ’round and ’round as on a carousel but without any of the joy.

            You have created a conflict where there is none, a rivalry between Moses and Aaron. You have argued that Moses diminished the Aaronic priesthood. This is empty speculation ignorant of the facts. I Chronicles 6 traces the Aaronic line up through the Babylonian exile. It is obvious that the Aaronic line was still important hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have altered and diminished their role. In fact, they were they were the high priests at the time of the Babylonian exile. From 2 Kings 25, it can be seen that Seraiah, whose lineage is traced back to Aaron in 1 Chronicles 6, is high priest at the time of the Babylonian exile or shortly before. And his son was carried off into exile.

            The priesthood was not confused as you insist.

            Jim

  19. CP says:

    yourphariseefriend says:
    December 27, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    “………..As for the first talmidim of Yeshua – how do you know who kicked who out of what? The book of Acts gives us to understand that the Jewish following was tolerated in Jerusalem and participated in the Temple rites. I imagine that with time their hatred toward those who wouldn’t follow their beloved leader created an unbridgeable gap between them and the Jewish community – just read the love for the Jews and sense of brotherhood with the Jewish community that pours out of the pens of the writers of the Christian Scriptures.”

    R’B,
    I concede it takes two tho quarrel.
    However allow me to ask you this;
    If in action I kept to Orthodox Judaism as well as any other in your coggregation yet believed in Yeshua as the first advent of Messiah, would you accept me as a member? As a brother?

    • CP After a 2000 year track record as dismal as Jesus’ I would expect any moral upstanding community to reject a believer in him

      1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

      • CP says:

        Wow, that kinda hurts!

        R’B,
        Allow me to ask;
        Do you realize people like me have been persecuted for almost 2000 years by the same people who have persecuted you? Do you realize I have been banned from every Christian forum I’ve ever joined? Do you realize I’m not welcome in the majority of Christian Churches and therefore do not attend.

        Considering I strive to be Observant and am not at odds with Oral Torah when considering Reform and Conservative Judaism perspectives, the only difference I see between us is in the degree of authority Oral Torah holds and if Yeshua is the the first Advent of Messiah. Yet you’d reject me on the grounds of the same people who rejected and persecuted us both?

        I know you are a Rabbi and I respect that, but you are also human being and I don’t see your rejection of me based on others who I’m not affiliated with as a Torah based decision.

        In all the time I’ve been here, I’ve agreed the New Testament is tainted by a Hellenized Anti-Semitic Church and many people claiming Christianity succumbing to the evil inclination in their hearts have perpetrated atrocities in the name of Jesus using these writings for their justification. I’ve agreed the writings of Paul are either wrong, tampered with or terribly misunderstood. I’ve affirmed Moses, Torah and daily the Shema. I’ve even to some extent affirmed the authority of Oral Torah although not to the same extent as Orthodox Judaism. Yet you would reject me and deny me fellowship only because I believe God appointed Yeshua to accomplish preliminary work within the bounds of Torah prior the coming of Messiah? (I believe Maimonides believed the same thing was a possibility).

        I have spent countless hours searching and praying to know the historical Jewish Yeshua who is compatible with historic Judaism and Torah. I have endured the rejection of of my peers based on the truths uncovered and boldly declared, truths you’d agree with. Therefore it is rather disheartening to be rejected by you also, based on the actions of those who also reject me because of my agreement with you.

        Perhaps my prayer is being answered; knowing first hand the historical Yeshua; to be rejected by Jews and perverted by Gentiles.

        • Dina says:

          Sorry for interjecting, CP, but you don’t know first-hand the historical Jesus. No one does. You cannot possibly ever know, since he left no writings, and the ones that others composed about him even you agree are full of error (which you believe are redactions or interpolations).

          The Jewish community for 2000 years has consistently and repeatedly rejected Jesus as a false prophet and a false messiah. Following a false prophet violates the Torah; furthermore, don’t reject the testimony of God’s chosen witnesses and then try to gain entrance into that community (just a little friendly advice). Until you reject your false prophet you will never be a candidate for conversion to Judaism.

          This is not personal. You may be a fine person, a good, moral, human being (and despite our differences I think that you are). You may well merit a place in the world to come as a righteous gentile (the heaven of the Jews is much more inclusive than the Christian one). But you will not be a Jew as long as you follow Jesus.

          In which case, how about taking another look at those two remaining prophecies, eh?

          And finally, if you believe Christians are living out the truth of the Torah better than Jews, then why do you seek conversion?

          • CP says:

            Dina you wrote; ” But you will not be a Jew as long as you follow Jesus.”

            I was born with Jewish blood running through my veins, a descendant of Isaac, circumcised, keeping Kashrut, studying Torah, studying Hebrew, a supporting member of the local synagogue, keeping Shabbat and will die a Jew.

            This is not personal. You may be a fine person, a good, moral, human being (and despite our differences I think that you are). You may well merit a place in the world to come as a righteous Jew despite your rejection of one appointed by God. But with all due respect if you think you can rob me of my Jewishness; you can go pound sand, cause it ain’t happening!!!!!!!

          • Dina says:

            You said you didn’t know you were Jewish? As long as there is doubt about your matrilineal descent, you can’t claim Jewishness.

          • Dina says:

            Even if you a Jew, a Jew who follows a false messiah has placed himself outside the Jewish community. You are not being rejected; you have cut yourself off.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            I understand that it hurts to be rejected. And, it is lonely to be without a community. However, you may look at your situation in another way. It is not the Jewish community rejecting you; rather, you are rejecting them.

            Consider how readily you have accepted the malicious slanders against the Jewish leaders, though they have appeared in books that you acknowledge are full of falsehood. This act, which sets you up to be the judge over the Jewish community, is an act of rejection of that community. That you accept the words of liars and criminals as testimony against your own people puts you outside of communion with them.

            You say that you wish to be among your people and to be acknowledged by them. Yet, you deny their knowledge of their laws and their stories. You deny their knowledge of their history. You deny their knowledge of how to fulfill their obligations as a people, knowledge handed down generation to generation, faithfully preserved. Against their knowledge, you establish your own intuition. Though separated from the community, you assert the superiority of your knowledge of a way of life denied you. You reject the ways of your people in favor of your own intuition.

            In rejecting the Oral Torah, you reject your people. You reject their way of life and the authority they have to interpret their texts. Against the Oral Torah, you have asserted the existence of another, this one authored by Jesus. You make him to be the sole legitimate rabbi, the only judge. It is clear, however, that his personal oral Torah did not come from God through Moses and was not a part of Jewish tradition. It was not a part of the people. Embracing his invention over Jewish tradition is to reject them. It may feel like you are being rejected, but in reality you have rejected them.

            The Jewish people have a mission in the world. They are a priestly nation, keeping alive the knowledge of God and of His Torah. For 2,000 years the Church has posited a false god and a false reading of the Torah. Now you would bring into the Jewish community your own private interpretation of Jesus. Surely you can see the confusion you would bring. If the Jewish community welcomes those that embrace your version of Jesus, many will not understand that other teachings regarding him are to be rejected. This is particularly true if your version is accepted, because you minimize the sin of idolatry and maximize the sin of not listening to a prophet, not listening to Jesus. The priestly nation will be more susceptible to an increase in those that worship a man rather than God. By demanding that your personal understanding be accepted, you reject the Jewish mission.

            In demanding that your own private views be accepted by the Jewish people, you do not set yourself up for rejection. On the contrary, you have rejected them. This may not hurt any less, but if you consider this, you may see that the situation is not how you thought. The Jewish people have a Torah that predates you and an understanding of it that predates you. In asserting your own private interpretation, you have turned your back on their knowledge and understanding. You are lonely because you have rejected them and gone your own way.

            Jim

        • CP I hate to be the one to have to break this to you but the Jesus you follow is unknown in the world – its like saying I am a follower of a person who is very well known – but you mean to tell us that you are a follower of another person by the same name. The Jesus that the world knows has a dismal track record – you want to reinvent Jesus. You are not alone – but you can’t expect the Jewish community at large to examine every Jesus that lives in people’s imagination. You will agree, I assume, that the Jesus of the Crusaders, Inquisitors and SS men was not a nice person? You will also have to agree that the word “Jesus” means precisely that person to most people who ever lived – or do you?

          1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            R’B, it is they who reinvented Jesus. Even though they be the majority, doesn’t make them right. If the majority was always right we’d have a Tach rather Tanach because there’d be no need of Prophets

          • CP I would say that it is not a matter of reinventing – no one can now with any certainty about a man that lived and died so long ago – there is a meaning given to a word by billions of people and if one person gives his own meaning to the same word (“Jesus” – in this case) – he shouldn’t be surprised if the world doesn’t speak his language In any case – please read Jim’s comment to you – it hit the nail on the head

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Dina says:

            CP, a short while ago you told me that the MO of missionaries is to change the topic when confronted with irrefutable evidence. In that regard, you have changed or dropped topics in the past few weeks with alarming frequency.

            A list of topics you have changed or dropped follows:

            1. After failing to make the case for the “one stone on another” prophecy, you ignored the remaining two presented to you.

            2. After setting the standard that one must not do anything not stated outright in the Torah, you have failed to answer why you follow teachings absent from the Torah, namely: you need a man to get to God, you must believe in the messiah, if you don’t “submit” to the messiah you will be “destroyed.” (The words in quotes are yours, not the prophets’.)

            3. You have responded with silence to my charge that you falsely accused me of condemning those who follow Jesus for tying knots on Shabbos and not following the Oral Torah. I also charged you with posting the lie that the leadership which rejected Jesus was destroyed when the Temple was destroyed, and you failed to answer that as well. I addressed these two false statements and repeatedly brought it to your attention. You can read it here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-32075

            4. You dropped the topic of who holds God’s truth and who you should listen to, although I had responded to your weak rebuttal and repeatedly brought it to your attention. You can read it here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/christian-anti-semitism-is-it-still-relevant-by-jim/#comment-32076

            5. After changing the discussion about the Star of David from a pagan symbol to making an image, you dropped the topic. I asked you for clarification, but you did not respond.

            This is what I could think of off the top of my head; I don’t have time to peruse every thread to see what else, if anything, you changed to a different subject.

            I hope you will not be like the missionaries whose tactics you decry and answer all the challenges.

          • LarryB says:

            CP
            With all due respect, that’s one mans opinion. At least a billion would disagree with you. Your not the only one to investigate Christ. Thousands of books, millions of man hours of people who have devoted their lives to seeking the truth, over a period of thousands of years, yet you present another Christ. I believe if God wanted your knowledge to be out there it would already be mainstream. What is he waiting for? Maybe your the one?

          • CP says:

            Dina,

            1) Your argument pathetic. What is worse; you don’t even realize how pathetic it is.
            In summary; I posted the exact words recorded of Yeshua identifying he and the Talmudim were discussing the “BUILDINGS” and you say it is a failed prophecy because a small section of a retaining wall supporting the dirt under the expanded the patio well outside the Temple is left standing. Why would I continue to argue against such an absurdity?

            2) You twist words to your own convenience. I will do the same to you so that you may experience the frustration of trying to honestly communicate with such a person. —- The only way you get to God is through the man Moses. This is idolatry! You worship all his commands when we are to worhip God only. You have clearly exalted a mere man to be equal to God. If one doesn’t listen to Moses they are condemned with no life in the world to come. This makes Moses the sole judge of mankind when God alone is the judge. You submit and bow to a man rather than God to save your own life.
            – How’s it feel Dina?-
            When you drop your double standard, I will continue to discuss.

            3) if you deny the ruling religious leaders; the Sadducees, the Temple destroyed and Jerusalem razed in the same generation that rejected Yeshua; you are truly deluded with a cult mentality. I will wisely spend my time discussing honestly, however your denial of fact makes it a poor unwise use of my time.

            4) Truth comes from God, Period. I’ve posted a number of verses where Tanach points to the people you claim hold the Truth of God and says they have failed miserably and written lies. I don’t deny the Truth in Torah, or the New Testament for that matter, but such Truth is accessed through the Spirit of God. There is always a remnant of God’s true children and don’t deny you may be part of that remnant, but for you to claim the you’re the perfect preservation of Truth and the authority to teach it; sorry Torah and the New Testament teach otherwise. In fact my Rabbi has instructed me to be on guard against such teachings.

            5) I never changed the discussion about the Star of David. Rather you grabbed onto piece of floating furniture to avoid going down with the ship. You seized upon a word to change the context and derail the direction of the argument. Do you think Amos is a liar? He describes quite clearly by name the graven images / star gods Israel brought out from Egypt. If you look up the names you find the Star of David, a pagan six pointed star representing Saturn. What more is there to discuss?

          • CP Who told you that the western wall served no other function but a retaining wall? This “fact” is demonstrably false – and from the Christian Scriptures itself

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Your continued appeal to the holy spirit is empty. You wrote to Dina that “Truth is accessed through the Spirit of God.” However, this vain statement has been proven false already. The spirit of truth that fulfills the promise of Jesus is no such thing.

            This spirit of truth does not give Christians access to the basic truth that God is one and not to be found among created beings or objects. It does not inspire in them a love of truth so that they reject the misrepresentations of Tanach in the NT. It does not inspire in them a love of truth, so that they would reject the misconstruing of rabbis words in order to project Christological meaning. This spirit of truth, which you claim gives access to truth, does not even give the Christian the discernment to know when such frauds and deceptions are being perpetrated.

            No lover of truth would give himself over to the spirit that allows such deception. And I hardly think that you will convince anyone that such a spirit moves people that perpetrate and promulgate deception. Nor will anyone likely be convinced that Christians, claiming to be enlightened by such a spirit, have a greater insight than those that do not surrender themselves to empty deceptions.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            Despite my continued attempts to persuade you from the repeated proclaimed error that Christianity claims the Holy Spirit results in the immediate perfection of truth among believers, you flatly refuse to listen. Rather choosing to grab onto an erroneous piece of information to avoid coming to grips you indeed count a straw man as your partner in truth.

            However just for the sake of curiosity? By what power do the Rabbis discern truth, by pure intellect or something else?

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Let us say that a man claimed to have a spirit of mathematics, but he did not know the difference between odd and even. Would you assume on his say so that he was gifted with such a spirit? If he believes adding an odd number to an even number yielded by definition an even number, would you consider him a mathematician? Of course not! And if he told you that these errors were unimportant in the scheme of things, mere marks of his imperfection, would you believe that he were endowed with a spirit of mathematics?

            A man who does not understand the basics of any given field, who exhibits no facility for it, cannot claim to have the spirit of that thing upon him. It is up to the claimant to demonstrate his gift. Appealing to his imperfection does not demonstrate the gift.

            When a man claims that he has a spirit of truth, then he should demonstrate an understanding of basic truths at least. When he has a book to help him and still cannot demonstrate an understanding of basic truths, one knows that the claimant is only deceiving himself. Why should I submit to being deceived along with the one that deceives himself? And, if a man shows not only a lack of discernment but a disregard for the truth, then all his claims to a spirit of truth are only so much wind.

            You have yet to demonstrate any such spirit of truth. Instead, you attempt to invalidate any test of the claim. Your appeals to Christian imperfection are bizarre, because the Christian does not get even the basics right. The bar set for him is not particularly high. He cannot even pick God out of a lineup with a man. This error you see an unimportant. However, when one cannot get even the basics correct, it is obvious to all that he is not gifted in that field.

            Appeal to human frailty all you want. So far your appeal to a spirit of truth is empty assertion. When one sees an ignoramus, he does not praise him for his knowledge. A man cannot claim special insight from God when he cannot even recognize God. Declaim all you want about how unfair it is to test Christian claims to being endowed with the holy spirit. Your claim continues to be without foundation.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            “My Son be careful concerning Rabbinical decrees even more than the Torah… Torah contains prohibitions… But anyone who violates a Rabbinical degree is worthy of death.
            — B. Talmud, Ervin 21b

            So Jim, this is the path you have chosen?

          • CP This quote from the Talmud standing alone gives a wrong understanding of the Talmud’s position on this matter – it needs to be read in the scope of the context of the Talmud

            1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            Ahh, Jim,
            Great analogy! But not conducive to your argument, for it is you who error on the basics by defining as a ‘basic’ your one particular distinct perspective on the doctrine of Monotheism. When rather the real ‘basic’ is to love the one God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.

          • Dina says:

            There IS only one perspective of monotheism: the Torah’s. Anything else is idolatry.

          • Dina says:

            Just as a woman committing adultery cannot properly love her husband, one cannot properly love God when he gives his heart in devotion to another. Even if that other be Jesus.

          • Dina says:

            Let’s face it, CP: you have shown your true colors. You don’t think idolatry is that big of a deal. What really bothers you is when Jews use a star symbol to associate with David.

          • Dina says:

            If the spirit of truth cannot help you identify which God to love with all your heart and soul, then what’s the point of this spirit? It can’t even help you with the basics.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            You argue that it is my own particular definition of monotheism that excludes the worship of a man, implying that this is not important to the Torah. Actually, this is stated in Torah openly. It is a fundament of Torah. Let me explain.

            In Exodus 20, the entire nation hears God speak, which is how the Jewish people know that Moses is a prophet. It was a terrifying event. The people, gathered at Sinai heard HaShem command that they should have no gods beside Him. This is part of what are called the Ten Commandments or Ten Statements. The national revelation is the foundational event of Judaism. And HaShem felt it important to tell the people that their devotion belongs to Him alone.

            Deuteronomy 4 also discusses this event. There Moses emphasizes to the people that they saw no form at Sinai. Therefore, they should not associate God with any object in creation. In the same chapter, he emphasizes the HaShem is alone, stating it twice. This too is an important chapter that you may wish to study if you have a moment.

            I was surprised to find you referencing Deuteronomy 6 without knowing Deuteronomy 4. I was also surprised that you did not know the sentence before the one you referenced. The Jewish community quotes it regularly: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord alone.” Taken together, these sentences exclude the deification of Jesus or devotion to him. And though the Christian is sincere, he is in error.

            Indeed, to deny these verses are to deny a fundament of Torah. It is absurd to say otherwise. These are not obscure passages. Nor is this an obscure doctrine. The Christian violates one of the basic prohibitions of Torah. Nor does he understand that God is alone and there is none besides Him. How can he claim to be moved by a spirit of truth under such conditions?

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Please!
            You know by now I do not embrace speculations of composite unity. But you know what? I don’t judge others for being confused or misled, but doing the best they can with what they’ve been given. You, I assume were born with the silver spoon of Judaism in your mouth. Spoon fed Torah from infancy. Yet Torah hasn’t reached your heart if you continue to look down on those less fortunate than you. You fail to consider the grace given you; did you choose your parents? Did you make the hard choices and endure in-spite of persecution or was it your ancestors? But you would set yourself upon the throne of truth declaring yourself worthy to judge and belittle others as idolaters?

            If a person loves God with all their heart mind and soul and loves their neighbor as themselves, I’m sure God will forgive the misinformation they’ve been taught since infancy. But God may have a bone or two to pick with you, who sits in judgment claiming the right to judge, condemning those less fortunate because she through no merit of her own has been blessed with Torah from infancy.

            Tell me, what does God desire? Sacrifice or Mercy?

          • Dina says:

            CP, I’m not judging anyone, just noting that what they’re doing is wrong. I agree that if someone is sincere, God will take it all into account. He is loving and merciful and compassionate beyond measure. It’s His business to judge, not mine.

            But the question under discussion was not the sincerity of the Christian but the rightness or wrongness of the act and the question of whether the spirit of truth has any merit if it cannot help one identify who is God.

            Christians are worshiping an idol. That doesn’t mean they will be punished for it. Even righteous pagans have a place in the world to come (you see, I believe that you can be righteous and pagan).

            I don’t judge you either, by the way. I believe you are misguided, yes. You are often unkind, but I believe that is out of frustration and not out of malice (at least, I hope so). There is no doubt in my mind that you are sincere. One thing you do, though, is judge. You definitely judge me.

            To reiterate, I’m not judging any individual Christian for his idol worship. I’m just calling the act what it is: idol worship. And the Torah prohibits it. Is there anything in this statement that is false?

            Please find me which words I used that condemn all Christians for idol worship. Not the statement of fact that they are committing idol worship, but words of condemnation. For example, did I say they will be punished for it? Did I say they are wicked for doing so? If you cannot find such words, I hope you will apologize. This is the second time at least that you have issued this ugly accusation.

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            Quite simply you underestimate the mercy of God.

            “For He Himself knows what we are made of
            He is mindful that we are but dust.”
            Psalm 103:14

          • Dina says:

            CP, no one is talking about punishment for actions. We’re just discussing whether the action is objectively right or wrong, and if wrong, then what is the point of the spirit of truth if it can’t help you with a basic truth?

            This is an emotional response. Can you refute Jim’s argument?

          • Dina says:

            CP, you responded to none of my points, just attacked me for sitting on my high horse judging all and sundry. When you have quite done apologizing, will you respond to my points? One can’t help wondering if you continually attack my character, (“dishonest,” judgmental), intelligence (“ignorant”), and arguments (“pathetic”) to avoid having to answer my arguments.

            Your lashing out, I regret to say, betrays the weakness of your position.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Your appeals to the emotion have no place in the analysis of the truth claim that Christians have been endowed with a spirit of truth. This is not a discussion about God’s mercy, and it is not about judging Christians. It is about the claim that they have a spirit of truth. It is improper for you to play to the emotions; it muddies the discussion.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Calling a person an idol worshiper implies judgement. However I concede your point and apologize as you’ve not as I can remember pronounced more judgement than implied by accusing others of idol worship. However, although I might agree to a subtle abstract form of idol worship, those who worship Jesus as a manifestation of God have not made a graven image, especially if they are able to separate Yeshua from God as you’d separate Moses from God.

          • Dina says:

            Thanks for your apology, CP, I sure do appreciate it! Please know that when I call someone an idol worshiper, I do not mean it as a pejorative but as a fact.

            By the way, I don’t understand how you can say that worshipers of Jesus as a God do not make a graven image of him. We’re still in the Christmas season, everywhere I go I see graven images of Jesus and manger scenes and all that. Our neighbor has a Jesus statue in their window all year round. Why would you say something like that?

            Yet all that is beside the point. You cannot mean to say that it is a lesser sin to worship another entity beside God as long as you don’t make a graven image. There are two separate commandments in the Ten Declarations: “You shall not have other gods before me”; and “Do not make any graven images.” One who makes no graven images still violates “You shall not have other gods before me.”

            So worshiping a man as God is not a subtle form of idol worship. Christians unwittingly and sincerely and with the best of intentions are worshiping an idol. That is not to condemn them! That is just to state an objective fact.

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            You’ve been answered over and over and over and over again. Since you don’t appear to comprehend my words, let’s try math.
            Holy Spirit + Human Being = Improvement < Perfection

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            This point of yours is no more empty for having been made in a condescending fashion. Many people improve their lives without the holy spirit. Mormons do it. Muslims do it. Even atheists do it. You have not established that it is the holy spirit improves that improves their lives, the Christians that is.

            Moreover, the spirit of truth is concerned, one would think, with truth. So, if a person affirms to be true what is false and denies as false what is true, his claim to having a spirit of truth is worse than dubious.

            A further point, telling oneself that he has a spirit of truth is dangerous. If he comes into conflict with a countering viewpoint, he will be tempted not to grant it proper consideration, because he has a spirit of truth (he thinks) and the other person does not. He has a leg up, as they say. When confronted by a truth he does not believe (such as that a man is not God) then he will not consider the truth, because he believes the other person in the argument is not guided by the spirit of truth as he is. Many of us have seen Christians ignore the evidence of the Torah while calling their interlocutor ‘spiritually blind’. This does the Christian no good. It would do no one any good, believer in Jesus or not.

            In any event, you have failed to show that there is spirit of truth at work. You have made specious claims, and attempted to undermine any serious effort to analyze them. This fear of scrutiny is because no proof can be brought that a spirit of truth is moving among Christians. However, it would be better for lovers of Jesus if they could divest themselves of this notion. It hinders the pursuit of the truth.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            Your argument is no less empty for pointing out many of the pitfalls and shortcomings of those claiming the Spirit of Truth. My understanding is once you were a Christian. Yet you fail to understand the Spirit of Truth is a continuous minute by minute filling based on our actions and the grace of God? (It is not as some claim a one time forever filling).

            The fact Muslims improve their lives has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. The Witness Community of Christians point to the Spirit of God for their empowerment, so who are you being outside the Witness Community to say otherwise. In fact here is a Scripture which addresses this;

            “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.”
            (1John 2:19)

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Let us posit two good (but imperfect) men, twins alike in nearly every way. They both give charity. They do not steal, lie, or commit adultery. They rush to aid of those in need. The only difference is that one worships HaShem without Jesus. The other worships Jesus as God.

            When we compare the two men, we come across a problem with your theory. The one that worships God is not filled with the spirit of truth. The one that worships Jesus is. Yet, the only thing that divides them is that the one filled with the spirit of truth does not know that it is forbidden to worship a man. He does not know one of the fundamental precepts of Torah.

            Therefore, the spirit of truth leads one into error or the Christian does not have the spirit of truth. I favor the latter. However, if you wish to say that Christians and lovers of Jesus did receive a spirit, only that it should rightly be called a spirit of error, I would have trouble disproving you.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            Allow me to revise your clearly loaded question.

            “When we compare the two men, we come across a problem with your theory. The one that worships Moses is not filled with the spirit of truth. The one that worships Jesus is. Yet, what divides them? It can’t be that the one filled with the spirit of truth does not know that it is forbidden to worship a man. For both know one of the fundamental precepts of Torah. Therefore it must be realized giving honor due an appointed agent of God is not the same as worshipping them as God.”

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            The question is not loaded. When trying to analyze an invisible force, one must examine its effects. By comparing two like people and examining the difference, one can see the effect of the force, if one exists at all.

            Your counter-comparison is inapt. The Jewish regard for Moses is not the same as the billions of Christians that worship Jesus as divine (but are, according to you, filled with the spirit of truth.) Of course, there may be a person who worships Moses as God, but I know of no such person. Nor would the Jewish people make excuses for such a person. He would be committing a grave sin. On the other hand, you have said that Christians who worship Jesus as God are filled with the spirit of truth.

            What is obvious then, is that the spirit of truth that spells the difference between two good men, one of whom worships Jesus and the other who does not, is either a spirit of error or does not exist. It certainly cannot be sent from the same God Who decreed that one should worship no one and nothing other than Him.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Again Jim, you’ve loaded your question. While I’m not defending complex unity, these Christians you speak of actually claim to worship the one true God who manifested himself at Sinai and through Yeshua.
            If you start with a false premise you’ll be quite sure to reach an equally false conclusion. Of course that’s the intent, isn’t it?

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            No, the question is not loaded. And you did not even bother to substantiate your claim. The implication that my intentions are false is nothing more than an insult. Do you know how to compose an argument without insulting the integrity of those with whom you discourse?

            Funny thing is, not only is it not a loaded question, it was not a question at all. It was a comparison. And I’ve explained its purpose already. If you do not like that one, try another. Perhaps it will be more to your liking.

            A man, Philip, is a good man. He loves God and his neighbor. He cares for the needy and the poor. He does not steal, cheat or lie. He does not commit adultery. He is gentle and not given to violence. He lives a temperate life. But, he knows nothing of Jesus. According to what you have told us, he cannot be gifted with the spirit of truth.

            But, a missionary comes along and convinces Philip that God is a trinity and that the son, Jesus, died for Philip’s sins. And he convinces Philip that one should worship Jesus as God, not honor him as a rabbi but worship him as God. Philip accepts this. At this point, according to what you have said, now Philip has the spirit of truth.

            So, what is the difference between Philip before and after receiving the spirit of truth? After the spirit of truth came upon him, he worshiped a man. He read the Torah in a twisted fashion and could understand its truths less than before. He no understood God less and improperly worshiped a man.

            Again, this shows that the spirit is either:

            1. not real; or
            2. a spirit of error.

            Jim

          • Dina says:

            CP, I’m responding to your comment earlier, here:

            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/%EF%BB%BFclaiming-originality-excerpt-from-supplement/#comment-32267

            This is an emotional argument. What do feelings have to do with the search for truth? We must put our feelings aside or else we will allow our emotions to color our judgment. The question should not be, did my arguments upset you; but the question should be, where am I wrong and can you show me how! Thus, your exercise in trying to make me feel your pain is irrelevant. If you think I start out my day thinking, “How can I twist CP’s words today in order to inflict the maximum amount of distress,” then that explains a lot. If you think I’m such a beastly human being, then why consider my arguments seriously? Perhaps that is why you dismiss my arguments out of hand, without even, I suspect, reading them.

            The reason I suspect this is that though I repeatedly brought to your attention two comments, you have not responded to the arguments therein at all. Please know that I spent about a week thinking about those comments and jotting down thoughts on Google Docs before putting on the finishing touches and transferring them over to this blog in the wee hours of the morning. Do you know why I take the time? I take the time because I think this discussion is important. I take the time because I think you, a child of God created in His image, are important. I would be grateful indeed if you would also take the time to actually read my comments and respond in a thoughtful, meaningful, and substantive manner. Meaning–match me fact for fact. If I present historical facts, show me that my history is wrong. If I present Scripture, show me that my understanding is wrong. My plea to you is not to brush off what I write with the anger you have displayed in the comment referenced above.

            Now to address the comment itself.

            As I have stated many times, your proclamations do not the truth make. Proclaiming that the Western Wall is not part of the Temple does not make it so. Proclaiming that it could not be seen upon exiting the Temple does not make that absurd impossibility true. Proclaiming that none of the remains of the Temple’s buildings could be seen upon exiting the Temple also does not make it so. Rabbi B. has backed me up on this. Your unsubstantiated proclamations about what is and is not the Temple, what could or could not be seen, do not make the case for the fulfillment of Jesus’s prophecy.

            At the very least, I think you could concede that the evidence for fulfillment of this prophecy is inconclusive. If we reach an impasse on this–and I believe we have–will you continue to refuse to address the other two prophecies? And if so, how does this serve the purpose of truth seeking?

            Regarding the Jewish leadership at the time of the Temple, I realize I have not been clear. When you said leadership, I assumed you meant the Pharisaic leadership. What I wrote in my comment about the turn the leadership took after the Temple applies to that leadership. Yes, the Sadducees did not survive. Neither did the Essenes, the Zealots, the Sicarii…and the Torah observant followers of Jesus. The Pharisees were the only ones to survive and thrive (as I showed in my comment, which I will link to this comment again and which, please God, I hope you will finally read).

            As for twisting your words, I do not believe I twisted your words. I believe you trapped yourself with your own words. Vociferously rejecting any attempt to add to Torah, you wrote that tying a knot on Shabbos is not in the Torah, exclaiming, “Seriously! Need I say more?” By your reasoning, you need to reject teachings that are not in the Torah. These are “I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me”–in other words, you need a man to get to God; the idea that you must believe in the messiah; the idea that all who don’t believe in the messiah (“submit”) will be “destroyed” (your words, not the prophets). You respond with anger when I press you on this, but I can’t let it go. If you cannot find clear teachings in the Torah that support these three ideas, then you must reject them according to your own standards. I’m still waiting to hear a thoughtful and measured response to this challenge rather than an angry and emotional one.

            You raised the idea that truth comes from God. Of course it does. And then He gave His truth to us. Now here is where you misrepresented my words. I never said that all Jews at all times have acted in perfect accordance with the law and that all Jews at all times have perfectly preserved God’s testimony. I did say, according to Scripture, that God gave His Torah and His testimony to us and that He promised that we would successfully preserve His words and His spirit (Isaiah 59:21); I further said, according to Scripture, that God made this promise only to the people of Israel and not to the gentile nations who do not know His Torah (Psalms 147:19-20). This means that if you want to find the truth, you have to look in the right places. It does not mean that I personally have all of it. It means that you won’t find it in writings preserved by the gentile nations who God did not task with that responsibility. I am pretty sure you did not read my comment on this, as I showed you clearly how you misunderstood the Scriptures I cited. I will also link that below and I hope, truly hope, that you will kindly take the time to read it. Trust me, it will take you a lot less time to read it than it took me to compose and write it.

            Regarding the Star of David, I still don’t understand your point. First, I checked the reference and I don’t see any mention of the gods Israel brought out from Egypt. Second, I don’t see a reference to Saturn but to Kochav. At any rate, I did a little research (not enough, it’s true, and only on Google, which is not exactly serious research) and I have found that the hexagram was widely used in many ancient cultures mostly for decorative and commercial uses or as astronomical/astrological symbols. In some cases, it was used as a pagan symbol. I did not find any evidence that the god Kochav was represented by a hexagram, although it would make no difference if there were. It’s fair to say that just because a group of Jews thousands of years ago worshiped a god called Kochav does not mean that we must never, ever use the hexagram as a symbol for anything. The Star of David is not a pagan symbol just because it might be that a Jewish cult may have used the hexagram as a pagan symbol. This would be tortured logic.

            You got so fired up at Jim and me for saying that worship of a man is idolatry, because if someone sincerely believes he is worshiping God, then who are we to judge? Yet aren’t you judging Jews who sincerely worship God and it never would have occurred to them in a billion years that the Star of David is a pagan symbol? Did you ever think of that? Did you know that the first time I heard of such a concept was from you just a few days ago?

            So you still have unanswered challenges which I hope you will not dismiss.

            1. The two remaining prophecies.
            2. Support from the Torah for the three teachings I mentioned above (you need a man to get to God, you must believe in the messiah, if you don’t “submit” to the messiah you will be “destroyed”).
            3. Your false charge that I condemn Christians who don’t keep Oral Torah and tie knots on Shabbos, as well as your false claim that the Jewish leadership was destroyed (Pharisaic!).
            4. Who preserves God’s truth.
            5. My two comments, here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-32075 and here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/christian-anti-semitism-is-it-still-relevant-by-jim/#comment-32076
            6. Your weird (forgive me) take on the Star of David.

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            “But, a missionary comes along and convinces Philip that God is a trinity and that the son, Jesus, died for Philip’s sins. And he convinces Philip that one should worship Jesus as God, not honor him as a rabbi but worship him as God. Philip accepts this. At this point, according to what you have said, now Philip has the spirit of truth.”

            Nope, never said that. Thats not how it works. Perhaps why we are failing at communication?

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            You have multiple times affirmed that those that worship Jesus as God have the spirit of truth. The mechanics are not important. The fact is that, according to you, one that worships Jesus as God could have the spirit of truth. Because such a person might be no better off in other ways, the addition of the spirit that allows him to err is a net loss.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            The statues of Jesus you see are typically Catholics. The Nativity scenes are not particular to any Christian denomination, but are viewed as nothing more than that; a scene to commemorate. Obviously I don’t affirm either. But most Christians if you push them on the subject of monotheism and the Trinity you’ll find they have very little understanding, while they will all affirm one God, you’ll receive a multitude of answers how it all works. For example you’ll get egg shell/white/yoke analogies or the water/steam/ice analogy However every now and then you’ll find a Christian who has studied, so rather than getting picture book analogies you’ll get a string of big words like Hypostasis. The point is they go through great effort (or jump thru a lot of hoops) to be monotheistic, therefore they take it serious. Although your idol worship could be applied to a select few it is disingenuous to apply it to the majority of Christians.

          • Dina says:

            CP, they are still worshiping a man as God. They are sincere, unwitting, and believe they are doing the right thing. I respect that. But it doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make it not idolatry.

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            “You have multiple times affirmed that those that worship Jesus as God have the spirit of truth. ”

            Sorry Jim, you’ve either misunderstood, are thinking of someone else or had a vivid life like dream.

          • Dina says:

            I had the same dream. Funny coincidence.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            So your position is that those that worship Jesus as God do not have the holy spirit. Is that correct?

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim & Eleazar,
            One of you quoted the NT verse: ‘the Spirit will lead you into all truth’
            I think you’ve misunderstood the meaning thinking it claims all Christians know all truth. Perhaps this saying will help you understand correctly: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”.

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            “I had the same dream. Funny coincidence.”

            Why does that not surprise me?

            Jim
            “So your position is that those that worship Jesus as God do not have the holy spirit. Is that correct?”

            I’m not the judge of who has what. But if someone is worshiping the man Jesus as God, I think it a safe bet they are not being led by the Spirit of Truth.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            I refer you to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29825

            I am glad that you now believe that one who worships a man as God has not received the spirit of truth, but that has not been your positions.

            Also, your continued rudeness to Dina is unjustified. Is it so hard for you to be civil?

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim says:
            December 30, 2016 at 1:39 am
            CP,

            I refer you to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/conversation-a-note-from-jim/#comment-29825

            I am glad that you now believe that one who worships a man as God has not received the spirit of truth, but that has not been your positions.

            Also, your continued rudeness to Dina is unjustified. Is it so hard for you to be civil?

            Jim

            Jim,
            I read your link and still stand by what I wrote but fail to see why you linked to it. It supports what I’ve been saying all along and degrades your argument that I’ve been saying something else.

            As to Dina, it is not rudeness, it is frustration of repeatedly hauling five gallons buckets of water uphill to only to have her spill it on the ground and ask for another. In fact she just again posted 5 questions I’ve repeated answered over and over again. If this was a forum rather than a blog I could easily find them. Perhaps I’ll start copying my answers in notes, so to repost with little effort?

          • CP says:

            Dina,
            Out of respect for all the hard work you’ve put into your posts I’ve endeavored it read every word of every link. My little iPad cannot handle the large size of the conversation thread anymore. It took repeated attempts just to be able to read your posts. You supplied many lists of contentions here and at the links, contentionsI feel I’ve repeatedly answered. You know sometimes it should be less about winning arguments and more about knowing what argument to have.

            In the interest of getting to that point:
            *The prophecy of ‘not a stone left on another’. I’ve literally shown you the intent of Yeshua’s words but you cite some Talmudic technicality claiming a retaining wall of the patio constitutes the Temple. I reiterate this was not the intent of the prophecy and if you held the Tanach Prophets to the same standard of satisfying every imaginable technicality, we’d have no Prophets at all! Needless to say; we are at a impasse.

            *Star of David. Believe what you want. I’ve studied enough to know it is suspect. And personally think the Menorah would be a more fitting symbol. I have no intention of arguing with you over it, it is my personal opinion arrived at through study and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

            *As near as I can tell the bulk of the rest of your contentions can be satisfied by John 1:1. Once you realize Yeshua is declaring himself as a living breathing talking Torah then your contentions evaporate into thin air. For example:
            Way = Torah
            Truth = Torah
            Life = Torah
            But as I said before; you want to make it about a “man” so that when Yeshua says come to me you cry foul when Yeshua is actually calling people back to Torah and away from the traditions of man.

          • Dina says:

            CP, if you’ve read every word of every comment and you’ve nothing but dismissal without addressing the points, then it’s hard to escape the conclusion that you cannot answer my arguments.

            Contrary to what you may believe, I am not stupid. Jesus did not say that the Torah is the truth, the way, and the life and that no one comes to the Father but through the Torah. He said that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and that nobody comes to the Father but through Jesus. I did not make this about Jesus–Jesus made it about Jesus! You keep substituting “Torah” for “I” and “me,” but just because you say something doesn’t make it so. You can’t find support for this in the Torah, so you poke fun at my thick-headedness in just not getting it. How does this serve the interest of truth?

            You can’t find support in the Torah for the other teachings I mentioned, so you ignore them. How does this serve the interest of truth?

            You accused me of condemning all Christians for not keeping the Oral Torah and tying a knot on Shabbos. How does this absurd charge serve the interest of truth?

            You did not addressed the survival and flourishing of the Pharisees compared to the death of the Jewish Jesus movement. How does that serve the interest of truth?

            You did not rebut my explanation of Scripture regarding the preservers of God’s truth. How does this serve the interest of truth?

            I have nothing more to say about the stone prophecy. I’m content to let the audience decide who is being fair in this discussion. Yet you refuse to address the other two prophecies–how does this serve the interest of truth?

            If your opinion about the Star of David is just that, how do your subjective opinions instead of verifiable fact serve the interest of truth?

            I’m disappointed that you won’t engage, but nevertheless I thank you for taking the time to read my comments.

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            The quote shows that you have said that one may worship Jesus as God and have received the holy spirit, the spirit of truth. In fact, you have operated according to that premise in this entire thread. If it were otherwise, you would said that Dr. Brown cannot have the spirit of truth, because he worships a man as God. Now you are saying otherwise, yes? Now you say that a Christian that worships a man as God has not received the spirit of truth.

            Just for clarification: please state clearly whether or not one that worships Jesus as God can have received the spirit of truth.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            yourphariseefriend says:
            December 30, 2016 at 10:44 am
            “CP This quote from the Talmud standing alone gives a wrong understanding of the Talmud’s position on this matter – it needs to be read in the scope of the context of the Talmud”

            R’B, you have my complete undivided attention, I’m listening, could you please explain the proper meaning in context?

          • CP The Talmud is a book of rules – and there are literally hundreds of statements, rules and attitudes that demonstrate that the authors of the Talmud understood that Torah laws are more important, more powerful and more binding than rabbinic laws – that is the overarching context of the statement The meaning of the statement is as follows – we differentiate when a person sins by mistake, or because of temptation, or out of rebellion – or anything in between. – a person who violates a Torah law is generally not doing so out of rebellion against God – at least not the average person in a Torah observant society – but one who knowingly violates a rabbinic law is most likely rebelling against the authority behind the law – the Scriptural parallel to this concept is found in Joshua 1:18 where anyone who disobeys Joshua is to be put to death while there are many categories of disobedience to God where there is no death penalty And one more thing – in Joshua – the death penalty is literal – in the Talmud it clearly means that God will exact the punishment 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >

          • CP says:

            yourphariseefriend says:
            December 30, 2016 at 10:48 am
            “CP Who told you that the western wall served no other function but a retaining wall? This “fact” is demonstrably false – and from the Christian Scriptures itself”

            I did what you said (but before you said it) I looked at pictures of the model in Jerusalem and clearly identified the Western Wall next to Wilson’s arch. I also google earth mapped the Temple Mount.

          • CP
            No one denies that one of the functions of the Western wall was to retain the earth behind it – but no one denies that it was a towering wall – visible from afar and impressive – and that the area it surrounded was called “the Temple” by the general populace – as is evidenced by the Christian Scripture itself

          • CP says:

            R’B,
            Happy New Year!
            “CP The Talmud is a book of rules –” …….Thank you this, it helped.

            Would you mind two questions? I’ve been studying since Friday night, sleeping only 5 hours. And, hate to admit it but have come to an uncomfortable understanding, (that’s the second question).

            1) The Jewish year is 5777, but I read it is actually 5992. On further research found the difference is because of 5 Persian kings counted instead of 13 and a few other minor mistakes. I also read some Rabbis comments agreeing with this and that it is kind of “insider knowledge”. Do you know about this? (the reason I ask is because it puts the 6th millennium in 8 years!… isn’t Messiah expected then?)

            2) I came across some material which pretty much conclusively proves Yeshua taught and observed TALMUD! Just when I thought I had it about figured out; Yeshua and Paul although Torah observant, taught in contradiction to Oral Torah therefore explaining much of the NT writings. This throws a big wrench in the works. I’m fine with kicking Paul to the curb for now while I deal with this Talmud observance issue. But Yeshua teaching Talmud has huge ramifications for me.

            Have you known this all along? You’ve studied both sides, being a Rabbi and knowing Talmud surely you knew where Yeshua’s teachings came from. I’m not sure what to do with this information, but I can’t ignore it.

          • CP
            The conflict between conventional and rabbinic chronologies is rooted in the rabbinic understanding of Daniel 11:2 – the theory that the rabbis knew this and tried to hide it has been refuted (the theory’s primary proponent conceded that the available evidence precludes his theory) – I know of one recent scholar that tried to reconcile the rabbinic chronology with the available evidence – Alexander Hool – I am not qualified to rate his theory simply because this is not something I studied to any level of depth
            The idea that the Messiah must come by the year 6000 is one interpretation of a rabbinic statement – despite its popularity it is still only one interpretation
            About Jesus teaching Talmud – what did you think he meant when he said to obey the Pharisees?

          • CP says:

            R’B, thanks for Daniel 11:2.
            “About Jesus teaching Talmud – what did you think he meant when he said to obey the Pharisees?”

            To be painfully honest; until a few days ago I deferred to the Matthew Shem Tov text and thought it meant; ‘obey the written Torah they teach you when seated in the literal bema Moses seat in the synagogue’.

            And now, I don’t know. I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, but I’ve certainly been dislodged from my former position. So if you don’t mind me throwing the ball back to your court; (haha unintended pun) ; What do you think he meant when he said to obey the Pharisees?

          • CP
            I think he meant that the Pharisees are correct in their dispute with the Sadducees – I think this simply because that is what I think his contemporaries would have thought he meant – I wrote more on this in Supplement to Contra Brown volume V point # 69
            https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/dr-brown-volume-5/

          • CP says:

            R’B, I know your questions are designed to make me “think”. But I don’t know “who” the Pharisees were in Yeshua’s day. I know it is taught there are “7 Kinds of Pharisees” surely he didn’t mean to listen to all of them. And how do I apply this today? Theoretically I could decide what I want to hear and find a Rabbi that teaches it.

          • CP
            The concept of “7 kinds of Pharisees” is also taken out of context – there was only one type pf Pharisee in the sense of a belief system, the concept of 7 types just speaks about how people are able to twist religiosity into wickedness

            The Pharisees as a belief system (as those who opposed the Sadducees) were those who believed that the eternal community is also a repository for God’s truth

  20. Matthew Perri
    As of now you are blocked from commenting on this blog – if you want to continue – please contact me at iblumenthal@yeshivanet.com

    • CP says:

      Matthew Perri,

      I’m posting in the chance you may visit. I didn’t want to post a premature Goodbye in case you got things worked out with R’B.

      I just wanted to say I enjoyed your fellowship and giving me rabbit trails to chase down.

      Here is a going away present, I’d send you a copy if I could. But highly highly highly suggest you get this Book. I’ve not finished it yet, but it will answer many many many questions about Paul, Judaism and Christianity. So far it has been a key unlocking a multitude of mysterious items of confusion. Don’t be thrown off by the Title, it is much much more!

      Galatians
      A Torah based commentary in the first century Hebraic context
      Avi Ben Mordechai

      If I don’t get to talk to you again, know you’ll be missed!
      Love ya bro!

  21. Eleazar says:

    >>>>those who worship Jesus as a manifestation of God have not made a graven image, <<<<

    If I were to ask any one of a million Christians what Jesus looked like, I guarantee you most would have a picture in mind of a six foot tall 30 year old man who looks not unlike a bearded rock guitarist wearing a dingy, off-white robe. There have been literally MILLIONS of graven images of Jesus made through out history, 99% of them looking essentially the same ( based on the same portrait of a certain medieval Spanish prince). There are probably tens of millions of them in circulation right now.

    "Holy Spirit + Human Being = Improvement < Perfection"

    That's not what the Christian Bible or gospel teaches.
    1John 3:9 -Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

    Truth is, this statement by John is 100% consistent and makes complete sense from the gospel point of view. You are either a "new creation" or you are a only believer in a God that "helps you do a little better" and lies when he declares you "perfect" because of a human sacrifice. Again, according to Hebrews, the difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christianity results in a perfected human, not just a slightly better one ( and even that point is debatable). Hebrews says that animal sacrifices never changed the nature of a person from sinner to non-sinner, but Jesus' death does.

    Let me ask you a question. If I drop from smoking two packs a day to smoking only one, does that make me a non-smoker?

    • CP says:

      Eleazar,
      Quite simply ~
      You confuse Justification with Sanctification.
      Out of which a multitude of misunderstandings are born.

      • Eleazar says:

        Irrelevant and does not even address the text. Do you believe 1John 3:9 or don’t you?

        • CP says:

          Eleazar,
          It is not irrelevant, but I see you changed your question. I’d supposed you were trying to trap me with the Johannine Comma.

          Yes, I understand the value in this particular verse however stress it should be understood strictly in moderation.

  22. Eleazar says:

    ““They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.”
    (1John 2:19)”

    So you accept 1John as completely reliable and trustworthy, Cp?

    • CP says:

      Eleazar,
      Like the rest of Scripture, it is infallible but not necessarily Inerrant.

      • Eleazar says:

        So you are saying 1John2:19 could just as easily be in error as being true? If so, then why quote, let alone quoting to Jewish people? Or are you saying you accept 2:19 as both infallible AND inerrant, while rejecting 3:9 as in error while somehow accepting it being infallible? What do you do in such a case? How can something ( or someone) in error be infallible? How can that be when both words by definition (according to Webster) mean “incapable of being wrong” ? Or do you now define word meanings with your own made-up definitions as well? No offense, but you would make a fine trinitarian.

        • CP says:

          Eleazar,
          Why would you go to Webster for a theological/hermeneutic definition?

          “From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that “infallibility” is a stronger term than “inerrancy”. “‘Inerrant’ means there are no errors; ‘infallible’ means there can be no errors.” … The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice.”

    • TRM says:

      Those a quite interesting quotes Eleazar. First, we can wonder if the new testament is all inspired, some of it is inspired or none is inspired. If all is inspired, then, so be it and you are 100% right and all those “Christians” who went out of “us” were not followers of Jesus in the first place. Now for 3:9, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin” that can have different meaning and interpretations. What is “continue to sin”? Most would say that it is an habitual sin. Now Eleazar, how do you know, if G-d standard is perfection, what is an habitual sin? If you lie twice a month, would that be considered “continue to sin”? It really means nothing out of itself, it is not quantifiable. My “not continue to sin” might not mean the same thing as yours, and finally, won’t mean anything.

      Can we accept, as CP that part of the new testament is Inspired and some is not? And how do we know which part to accept? It’s funny that most messianic would disagree on how to keep Shabbat. Why, because there is no set of rules. Some will say it’s OK to do cooking/gardening and some will not even light a candle. What about cars? Now, if parts of the new testament is inspired, then anybody can disagree on which word is inspired and which one is not.

      Finally, how do you know that the new testament is inspired at all? How do you know that “John” did not write 2:19 for you to never doubt. Maybe those who doubted first were right! Have you ever thought about that? It’s easy to say “they never receive the Holy Spirit and are doomed to hell” and not to wonder if they might be right! The new testament was written for you to accept the “facts” and for you not to doubt them. Those who doubt are excluded from your belief system and the rest won’t listen, because if they do, they might be tempted and Satan might devour you like a fierce lion. So, what happen? You are always surrender with believer and if doubts comes to your mind, you are encouraged to pray to Jesus and repress those doubts! If you ever cross that line, then “you were never a true believer”, you never were justified and we do not have to listen to you! As Jesus said “Blessed are those who believe without seeing!” Don’t doubt, just believe. Don’t ask questions… and if you do, ask Jesus to remove those doubt and show you the truth. That is… that Jesus is god.

      Then, how do you know that the truth you believe is really the truth? You only accept those who believe that truth and reject anybody else that refuses to believe your truth!

      • CP says:

        TRM,
        You’ve given so much to sort through, some sentences being half true and half false, or can be or were taken out of context. Rather than sorting it all out, the simplest best way to handle this is for you to think about Moses and Tanach. Why do you believe what you believe? Then apply the same standard to Yeshua and the NT knowing it must align with Torah. If you do that you’ll be on solid ground.

        • TRM says:

          Why should I be on solid ground? Because Jesus said so (Matthew 7)? Let G-d be true and every man a liar. Or in other word “Curse is the man that trust in man” Give me one single reason why I should trust in Yeshua as per the Tanakh and I can tell you 10 why I should not…

          • CP says:

            Why should you be on solid ground?
            As opposed to shifting sand?
            I think the answer is obvious.
            I’m not asking you to believe in Yeshua (God saves) although I should. I’m just asking you to judge by the same standard you judge Moses and Tanach. For example you don’t have a problem with Moses saying “I command” then you shouldn’t have a problem when Yesuha uses the same vernacular.

          • TRM says:

            CP, the difference is that Moses did not required people to believe in him. Yeshua does. Most of Jesus commandment are not bad, and if they do not contradict the Torah we should listen to what he said. The problem is that Yeshua requires many many times for us to believe in HIM, not G-D! Moses did not say “Believe in me” or any of the other claims Yeshua said. Why should I “Believe in him” when the Tanakh say we should trust in G-d?

          • CP says:

            TRM,
            “CP, the difference is that Moses did not required people to believe in him.”
            ???
            If you were in Egypt when Moses showed up and rejected him, where would you or your ancestors be now? (Probably Egyptian Muslims)
            This is my point: ‘Double Standard’ —-If you wanted to be counted as the Witness Nation, saved from slavery and enter into a new way of life, you had to believe in Moses. It’s no different with Yeshua, except Judah rather than Egypt is currently is trying to block the doorway of the brothers wanting to reunite using the criteria of Oral Tradition onlyism, Yeshua not allowed. If I’m right they will find themselves fighting God.

        • TRM says:

          “If you were in Egypt when Moses showed up and rejected him”

          “But suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you.’”

          So the Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”

          He said, “A rod.”

          3 And He said, “Cast it on the ground.” So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it.

          Here, Moses never claimed he transformed the serpent into a snake, and it’s clear that Moses told the elders of Israel that The L-RD is the one that sent him and that the miracles were not HIS Miracles.

          What did Jesus said? “And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to Him, “Yes, Lord.””

          See the difference? I doubt it!

          • CP says:

            TRM,
            John 5:19
            “Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”

            Deuteronomy 31:25
            “that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,”

            Nope, not seeing the difference.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            CP, read closely the wording of John 5:19 “The son can do nothing of himself UNLESS it is something HE SEES THE FATHER doing.”

            IE if Jesus’ will matches G-d the father’s will, he can do anything G-d can do, because to the author of John’s gospel, Jesus is the equal of G-d,being his word, IE he was there at creation.

            Assuming that was true, G-d says explicitly “do not worship the whole host of heaven.”

            The New Testament says that Jesus was in “the form of G-d,” but did not regard equality with him as a thing to be grasped.”

            Moses is an agent/servant/creation of G-d, not someone to be served, not present at creation. Jesus is served as lord, while Moses is followed as agent.

            Would you sing praise to Moses?

            Moses said explicitly in Deuteronomy 4:16 not to make an image of any shape, neither a man or a woman.

            Nobody would sing “nothing but the beard of Moses” the way a Christian sings “nothing but the blood of Jesus.”

            If Yeshua was a Torah sage, good on him. Why do you have to convince others of who he is if they already believe in the Torah and the truths it contains that the Nazarene taught? So, Jews aren’t perfect, so what? Belief in Jesus will not make them any more perfect as history demonstrates.

            If Christians by the billions weren’t praying to Jesus and saying everyone who didn’t accept him was dammed, you may have grounds to accuse Jewsof a double standard.

            It is you however who comes here professing to follow and represent the Torah, who claims that Jews should accept Jesus, even when you recognize that his teachings are so horribly mangled that it takes a degree in religious studies, (which I have btw) to sift out the truth.That is the definition of a double standard.

          • CP says:

            Concerned Reader;
            “Nothing but the beard of Moses” Hahaha! Very funny!

            “If Christians by the billions weren’t praying to Jesus and saying everyone who didn’t accept him was dammed, you may have grounds to accuse Jewsof a double standard.”

            Not so fast; It is a double standard! If I were to accuse Jews by what the majority of Jews (Reform and Conservative) do then I’d be engaging in like fashion. But I do not, rather I go to the Text. However Yeshua is predominately judged by the majority of Christians rather than the Text. Furthermore Moses is not judged by the same standard as Yeshua when using the similar vernacular. In addition points previously unaddressed is the 1500 year difference in cultures between the two, the Torah changing fromAleo Hebrew to Square text at the time od Ezra, then being codified, adding vowels by the Masoretes, additionally redactions of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek NT text by a Hellenized population makes it unrealistic to compare the exact vernacular between Moses and Yeshua.
            -Just Say’n-

            “…his teachings are so horribly mangled that it takes a degree in religious studies…”
            IMHO this is an exaggeration.

          • TRM says:

            Yes CR, did Jesus forget to explain that to the blind man? How could he have not known that Jesus was actually given the authority by the father, he did not have the new testament. Jesus clearly said to many people that he did the miracles, he did not mention YHVH at all.

            If I come to you and ask you if you believe I can heal you from a disease, you would tell me quite frankly that only G-d can do these things. Why did Jesus do them? Why didn’t he said like all the other prophtets, “no me, but G-d does those miracles”? Why did he robe G-d of the glory? Would G-d give authority to someone who claims the miracles came from Him?

  23. Eleazar says:

    >>>>Again Jim, you’ve loaded your question.<<<<
    No, he really didn't. If he "loaded" it, it is only that it is a question designed to receive a consistent answer that is not self-contradicting. What you also have not pointed out is that the "spirit of truth" is not only supposed to reside in all Christians, but that such a spirit is to " lead into ALL TRUTH". Not some, ALL. And frankly, that is prophesied to happen in the messianic era. But the problem is it did NOT happen in the Jesus era. Jesus said this would happen after "he went away", not when he came back.

    "But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you….
    I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into ALL truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

    This was not a promise made for the "2nd coming", but for then, now and forever. Reality itself proves this prediction, which was to be the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31, was not fulfilled:

    "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD…"

    1John3:9, Hebrews 8-10 and John 14-16 were all to be the fulfillment of this passage of scripture; the most blatant and unmistakable identifier of the Messianic Age. Hebrews 8:11 even quotes it and claims it to be literally fulfilled! Until this happens, Messiah HAS NOT COME. The New Covenant HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE.

    • CP says:

      Eleazar,
      You just regurgitated a bunch typical Christenese mumbo jumbo.
      Prophecy is fulfilled as one crosses the foothills to get to the mountain peaks. But here you are claiming since the mountain peaks of Jeremiah have not materialized all is false. Yes the Advocate was given but only the foothills, Yeshua was rejected therefore the Spirit goes to those who accept, primarily the lost tribes, positioning them for the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31.

  24. Eleazar says:

    “Inerrant’ means there are no errors; ‘infallible’ means there can be no errors.”

    Either way, applying to 1John 2 or 3, it is saying the text is not in error. Okay, so you apply this to the two verses in 1John how? Is 1John 3:9 in error or not?

    ” Yes the Advocate was given but only the foothills, Yeshua was rejected therefore the Spirit goes to those who accept, primarily the lost tribes, positioning them for the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31.”

    Nowhere does the NT, let alone the Jewish Bible, say any such thing. How do you back your theory from the Tanakh or NT in light of 1John3:9, John 14-16 and Hebrews 8-10?

  25. Eleazar says:

    Cp wrote: “Like the rest of Scripture, it is infallible but not necessarily Inerrant.”

    Cp also wrote: ““Inerrant’ means there are no errors; ‘infallible’ means there can be no errors.”

    Please explain this in a rational way. You have just said, using your own definition:

    “Like the rest of scripture, there can be no errors, but its not necessarily without errors.”

    • LarryB says:

      daddy always taught, your lies will find you out.

      • CP says:

        LarryB / Eleazar
        The lie here is ‘someone’ quoting a partial definition looking to intentionally misunderstand it to make it appear foolish. Here is the complete definition with the edited out part put back in and capitalized

        . “From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that “infallibility” is a stronger term than “inerrancy”. “‘Inerrant’ means there are no errors; ‘infallible’ means there can be no errors.” ….”THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE IF AND ONLY IF IT MAKES NO FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS ON ANY MATTER OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

        Look Eleazar, in lay men’s terms; the Bible has errors, particularly evident where two accounts of the same incident are given, for example Kings and Chronicles where different numbers counts are given or differing sequences or differing places. Ask R’B about (I double dare you!) about the Mem sofit mid word in Isaiah 9:6 in the Hebrew Bible and ask him if it’s an error or are the Kabbalists right. But I digress..
        The same kind of thing happens in the New Testament. This makes the Bible NOT “inerrant” or without error. But none of the errors are the kind of errors that will mislead a reader into false doctrine. For example the Bible doesn’t have an error which claims more than one God, instructs idol worship or cannibalism. This makes the Bible Not “inerrant” but makes the Bible “infallible”.

        As to 1John 3:9; First off you can’t pull this verse out of context without changing the meaning. Read prior; it is about people who say they believe or have faith but continue to live the same sinful lives they lived before. So yes, in contexts think this verse is without error. However because you are singling this verse out I’m assuming a you’ve interpreted it in error. Allow me to present you with a correct common sense interpretation from a Jewish perspective:

        “Any one loving God and being Torah observant just doesn’t keep sinning as they did before claiming to love God and observe Torah”

        That make more sense than immediate sinless perfection?

        • Concerned Reader says:

          “Any one loving God and being Torah observant just doesn’t keep sinning as they did before claiming to love God and observe Torah”

          The audience that 1st John was written for was a proto orthodox one, against people who were proto gnostics ( specifically Docetic Christians) with antinomian tendencies who believed that once you had faith you could not sin. (which the author admits he also believes, but he understands differently.) It was likely written from 95 to 110 CE. Not only is Torah observance not actually mentioned, though “old commands” and ethics are mentioned as a means to divide truth: it is apparent that this is a text dealing with internal disagreement among later Christians themselves who held unique Christian assumptions about theology. (That’s why the comma was interpolated, the Catholic/orthodox position is at home in this text.)

          The very 1st verse until v. 4 clearly teaches the true incarnation (to rail against the docetics who said Jesus was only a spiritual being.)

          1 John 2:22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

          This verse alone condemns every non Jesus believing Jew, not on the basis of his or her faithfulness to the commandments, but on the basis of a confession of faith. This is a proto Orthodox/Catholic Christian epistle. CP, as you noted, the discussion is about sanctification VS justification. (THIS IS ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN TERMINOLOGY.)

          “the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.” (Except the author who has to teach these men that ethics and not confession divides the true from the false.)

          1st John 2:29 would appear to some to be an advocate of universal reconciliation in that it claims “If you know that he is righteous, you know that EVERYONE WHO DOES WHAT IS RIGHT has been born of him.”

          So, is it he who does what is right who follows Jesus, or he who confesses Jesus with his mouth?

          This text seems to be in a state of contradiction because it is one group of Christians arguing with another group of Christians about “who is it that “really” follows Jesus, confessors, or doers and confessors.

          Jews who are not part of the Christian movement are not even included in this discussion, much less the ten tribes.

          BTW, the fact that this epistle is wrestling with the question of requisite knowledge, sanctification, justification, and whether one who has the spirit can sin, shows that it can’t be about the ten tribes, at least not as we have it. The ten tribes will be people who have no requisite knowledge. They are lost because they are lost.

          The writer of 1st John is a Christian who is writing against other Christians who share some, but not all of the essentials of his beliefs.

          1 John 3:9 “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.”

          (G-d’s seed is the “spirit of truth,” but the spirit of truth rests only with those who confess Jesus according to the author.) G-d’s seed is the spermitokos Logos, “implanted reason,” this is dealing with issues of supernatural justification by faith. One group of Christians believes that ethics are involved in the equation, the opposing group does not believe that.)

          • CP says:

            Concerned Reader,
            The statement of mine you quoted was not meant to be taken doctrinally. Rather as a example to Eleazar, putting similar moccasins on his feet so he could experience the feel of 1John 3:9 to better understand it in the context intended.

            Your analysis of 1 John is spot on saying the same thing as I said in layman’s terms assuming the technical would beyond most here. However you’ve interpolated some opinion I disagree with and there appears to be somewhat of a contradiction between your stated opinions.

            “This verse alone condemns every non Jesus believing Jew, not on the basis of his or her faithfulness to the commandments, but on the basis of a confession of faith.”
            VS
            “Jews who are not part of the Christian movement are not even included in this discussion,….”

            (I agree with the latter).

            Also:
            “This text seems to be in a state of contradiction because it is one group of Christians arguing with another group of Christians about “who is it that “really” follows Jesus, confessors, or doers and confessors.”

            Exactly! Same as the Book of James and Jude! These books deal with misunderstanding the writings of Paul perpetrated by ignorant Gentiles unable to separate Oral Torah from Written Torah and therefore were throwing out the Written Torah with the Oral Torah leaving them nothing but a confession of Christ. Granted 1John deals with more, however I’m only addressing which is in context of our discussion.

  26. Jim says:

    CP,

    Please clarify for me: If a person worships Jesus as God, does this mean that he has not received the holy spirit?

    Jim

    • CP says:

      John 3:8
      “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

      • Jim says:

        Why are you unable to answer the question clearly and directly?

        • CP says:

          I feel I answered quite clearly and directly with Scripture nonetheless!
          In my own words; I don’t know

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Thank you. So, my entire argument stands, and you have demonstrated nothing and have answered the challenge with nothing. If you allow that a man may worship a man as God and be gifted with the spirit of truth, then you show the claim that such people have a spirit of truth to be hollow. They do not know even the basics of Torah and violate one of the fundamental commandments.

            Either no spirit has been given them, or it is a spirit of error.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            Your logic is flawed, unless of course you can demonstrate the mysterious workings of the Spirit directed by the mind of God. However that being said I stand in good company concerning my answer to you in this matter:
            “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
            Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
            “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
            So are My ways higher than your ways
            And My thoughts than your thoughts.
            (Isaiah 55:8-9)

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Indeed, I have already demonstrated it. This abuse of scripture by you is just another obfuscation in a long list of obfuscations on your part. You made a claim that you have yet to back up. Appealing to some mystery of the mind of God does not absolve you of your responsibility to support your own claim with evidence. Nor does it erase the difficulty that you claim that people who worship a man may have a spirit of truth upon them.

            Jim

        • CP says:

          Jim,
          I apologize to you for not being able to explain all the deep mysteries of God. I suppose you will consider that proof your contention is correct concerning the Spirit of Truth. However, allow me to contribute further to “This abuse of scripture….just another obfuscation in a long list of obfuscations on your part.”

          “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
          Deuteronomy 29:29

          • Jim says:

            CP,

            Do you read a scripture before you quote it, or do you just see a useful phrase and glom on to it? I direct your attention to the end of the verse: “…but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” Yet you have proposed a spirit of truth–one of the secret things, I suppose–that acts at cross purposes to the revealed things. You have made a god of contradiction. You assert that there is a spirit of truth, sent by God, that allows people to wallow in confusion unable to understand or fulfill “all the words of this law.” Not only does this spirit of truth not help them to understand and fulfill the law, it does not help them understand one of the basics of the law.

            These verses you abuse reveal one thing, that you can provide no evidence of a holy spirit on the followers of Jesus. Instead of offering proof, you offer excuses. You appeal to vague mysteries. Your misplaced sarcasm underscores the emptiness of your claim. You wrote correctly when you said that you would abuse another scripture.

            Jim

          • CP says:

            Jim,
            I’m sorry you don’t understand, if you’d kept in context of the discussion that might of helped.
            To bring you back to context: You inquired of required conditions to receive the Holy Spirit. I replied with a NT scripture addressing your very question. You didn’t like it or didn’t understand, so I used my own words. You then declared a contradiction so I showed you two Tanach verses supporting my position, and somehow you’ve got it twisted up into something else?

            What don’t you understand about; ‘some things only God knows’ and how the Holy Spirit works is one of them???

  27. Concerned Reader says:

    CP, you missed my point. 1 John as a book has NOTHING to do with the TORAH. Its a thoroughly Christian theological book written in the second century when the Christians as a movement do not even care about the Torah, much less know anything about it. It was written after every single disciple of Jesus had died. It was written somewhere between when Polycarp of Smyrna was between his 20s-40s. It has no place claiming any authority whatever. Claiming that the spirit of truth guided these people is absurd. They forgot all about what you deem central, the written Torah. A spirit of truth regarding the Bible would not do that.

    You keep saying that you want the rabbis to use the same standard they use when judging Christianity. Lets ask what is that standard.

    1. G-d established a nation with judges and a law. Lets assume for the sake of argument that G-d did not establish a centralized authority structure, but instead felt that personal experience of individuals was enough. The fact is, he commanded that there be appointed judges, so there must be a standard.

    Here is a hypothetical standard for appointing a judge.

    – elected based on Torah observance and the merit of his character by 3 upstanding members of the community who are also Torah observant, possibly priests.

    – While elected, if these men make changes that are against the grain of Torah, Israel, (the people who appointed the judges) can evict them, and appoint new judges by deferring to the 1st principle of merit and observance.

    – Any problems arising with observance due to changing circumstance, times, or knowledge can be amended by a judge with the assent of three witnesses, as long as said practice does not violate the law, or add to it in such a way that it fails to solve the problem intended in keeping with the spirit of the law. If there is a failure in regard to these details, the community may defer to the earlier principles and appoint new judges.

    Do you think the oral Torah has no limits? Do you think the people are monolithic and tied?

    You are like a man who wants to ride on a speed boat (that he admits is full of holes that he tries to patch himself,) because it has a fast engine.

    You criticize the Jew, who rides in a wooden boat with sails and added life preservers with a guide, because its slow, and its presumptuous to do because it implies the boat as given is unsound.

    You ask, “why do you claim to need a life preserver or added instructions from a guide? Do you not trust the integrity of your boat? Its full of holes as well just like mine!

    The men you question respond to you by saying. “our ancestors have always been sailing, they gave us extra life preservers, and they taught us how to bail water and patch leaks when the boat gets a hole, but most importantly we work together. We will not get on the speed boat, because this is the boat our ancestors traveled on.”

    CP, you begrudge rabbis their traditions, but you cannot follow Jesus without embracing some Christian traditions that ask more of you, and take more from you than Judaism’s tradition has the authority to ask and take.

    As I’ve shown, much of that doesn’t even have a Torah foundation at all.

    • CP says:

      Sorry Concerned Reader, you missed the point if you thought I said Torah had something to do with 1John. I thought I made that very clear in my response the first time you raised the contention. However I could make an argument for it, but to do so here would sidetrack the discussion.

      So if I understand your boating analogy correctly; you contend the Torah given through Moses is full of holes needing to be patched by oral tradition? And that it requires added safety equipment because by itself is unsafe and constantly needs bailing out?

      I disagree, however concede either boat would benefit from additional operational instructions from those who have experience operating said boats. But such instructions should aid in operation not bind one to a particular operation not already inherent in the design of the boat.

      • Concerned Reader says:

        No, my point is, this is the charge you are laying against Judaism. You lay the charge that rabbis have heaped doctrines of men on the Torah. (life preservers and guides)

        Meanwhile you have your speed boat that you admit is full of holes. You slowly work to patch the holes individually, to drash out the “real” Yeshua with scholarship.

        Jews have a boat made of wood that does work on its own, it paddles slow and sure by hand. (oral Torah has limits it does not override written Torah.)

        You complain to them that they need no guide (oral Torah) they need no life preserver (fences around Torah) You say the boat (written Torah) floats on its own, and that it is foolish to put stalk in tradition as authoritative. (the boat cant sink you say, no teamwork required you say.)

        The Jewish response is that “our ancestors have always been sailing, they gave us extra life preservers, and they taught us how to bail water and patch leaks when the boat gets a hole, but most importantly we work together.”

        (the oral Torah is a guide that has limits. If there are holes in our boat, we know how to patch them, but we also can stay afloat even if we are not perfect, because we work together.)

        • CP says:

          Concerned Reader;
          ” (oral Torah……..it does not override written Torah.) ”
          This is blatantly false, shall we go there?

          My issue is not with the concept of an Oral Torah, in fact I affirm an Oral Torah. My issue is with what I view as abuses done to God, man and Written Torah by the improper use of Oral Torah.

          • Concerned Reader says:

            Ok, but orthodox Jews have the same grievances. Nobody is perfect. LOL Having Jesus isn’t gonna make it better. Just look at what Christian history has shown.

  28. Concerned Reader says:

    The sin of the golden prince

    The people saw that Moses had delayed in coming down and they said to Aaron, “make for us a god of gold, as for this man Moses we know not what has happened to him.” So Aaron took measurements from Moses’ bed and he made a Mold. Taking the gold and the silver, he melted it down. Behold the golden god, the prince of Egypt.

    Torah followers: Moses told us we are not to make a graven image of any form!

    Prince Worshipers: But, Moses was the mighty Shaliach of G-d, and he spoke G-d’s words for us, the Shekinah came from his throat. The Active intellect of G-d filled his soul. Verily he was the MAN OF G-d!

    The people loyal to G-d and to the Torah stood agape at what was happening.

    The golden prince worshipers said, “do you not believe that Moses came from G-d?”

    Torah followers: “yes we do.”

    Golden Prince worshipers: “did he not say he would come back?”

    Torah followers:”he did.”

    Golden Prince worshipers: “then let us wait until he comes. In the meantime, come and keep his spirit alive at the golden prince, it will be alright.”

    Torah followers: It would be better for us to forget his name and visage, then to forsake the teaching that he gave. His teaching doesn’t require his presence. A man’s memorial is his deeds. He does not need the confession of my mouth to have my respect.

    The Golden Prince worshipers: “Why have you made the love Moses showed us so cold by interpreting him so literally, and so legalistically? You do not represent what an open minded man he was.”

    Torah followers: We are not perfect, and G-d redeemed us knowing our imperfection. He explicitly said not to do what you are doing.

    The Golden Prince Worshipers: we shall see.

  29. Concerned Reader says:

    (oral Torah……..it does not override written Torah.) ”
    This is blatantly false, shall we go there?

    Go ahead

  30. Dina says:

    CP, because your iPad can’t handle long threads, I assume you’ve been missing some of my comments lately. I responded to your comment where you said that you read my linked comments despite the difficulty your iPad gave you because I had taken so much time to write them. For this, I thank you.

    I am pasting my response to you below, which I wrote on Friday, slightly edited.

    You say you read every word of every comment, yet instead of confronting the actual evidence I presented head on, you dismiss all my arguments in one fell swoop with your usual sneering condescension–the trademark, I suppose, of those seeking to learn. Because you do not address any of my points, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that you cannot answer my arguments.

    Contrary to what you may believe, I am not stupid. Jesus did not say that the Torah is the truth, the way, and the life and that no one comes to the Father but through the Torah. He said that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and that nobody comes to the Father but through Jesus. I did not make this about Jesus–Jesus made it about Jesus! You keep substituting “Torah” for “I” and “me,” but just because you say something doesn’t make it so. You can’t find support for this in the Torah, so you poke fun at my thick-headedness in just not getting it. How does this serve the interest of truth?

    You can’t find support in the Torah for the other teachings I mentioned (belief in the messiah, destruction to those who don’t submit to the messiah), so you ignore them. How does this serve the interest of truth?

    You falsely accused me of condemning all Christians for not keeping the Oral Torah and tying a knot on Shabbos. How does this absurd charge serve the interest of truth?

    You did not addressed the survival and flourishing of the Pharisees compared to the death of the Jewish Jesus movement. How does that serve the interest of truth?

    You did not rebut my explanation of Scripture regarding the preservers of God’s truth. How does this serve the interest of truth?

    I have nothing more to say about the stone prophecy. I’m content to let the audience decide who is being fair in this discussion. Yet you refuse to address the other two prophecies–how does this serve the interest of truth?

    If your opinion about the Star of David is just that, how do your subjective opinions instead of verifiable fact serve the interest of truth?

    I’m disappointed that you won’t engage, but nevertheless I thank you for taking the time to read my comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s